File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Evaluating journal quality and the association for information systems senior scholars' journal basket via bibliometric measures: Do expert journal assessments add value?

TitleEvaluating journal quality and the association for information systems senior scholars' journal basket via bibliometric measures: Do expert journal assessments add value?
Authors
KeywordsImpact factor
H-index
Composite ranking or rating
Nomologies for dissemination of scientific knowledge
SenS-8
SenS-6
Expert opinion
AIS Senior Scholars basket of journals
Bibliometrics
Self-citation
Scientometrics
Social network analysis
Journal quality
Information systems journal rankings
Issue Date2013
Citation
MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 2013, v. 37, n. 4, p. 993-1012 How to Cite?
AbstractInformation systems journal rankings and ratings help scholars focus their publishing efforts and are widely used surrogates for judging the quality of research. Over the years, numerous approaches have been used to rank IS journals, approaches such as citation metrics, school lists, acceptance rates, and expert assessments. However, the results of these approaches often conflict due to a host of validity concerns. In the current scientometric study, we make significant strides toward correcting for these limitations in the ranking of mainstream IS journals. We compare expert rankings to bibliometric measures such as the ISI Impact Factor™, the h-index, and social network analysis metrics. Among other findings, we conclude that bibliometric measures provide very similar results to expert-based methods in determining a tiered structure of IS journals, thereby suggesting that bibliometrics can be a complete, less expensive, and more efficient substitute for expert assessment. We also find strong support for seven of the eight journals in the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars' "basket" of journals. A cluster analysis of our results indicates a twotiered separation in the quality of the highest quality IS journals-with MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, and Journal of Management Information Systems belonging, in that order, to the highest A+ tier. Journal quality metrics fit nicely into the sociology of science literature and can be useful in models that attempt to explain how knowledge disseminates through scientific communities.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/233829
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 5.384
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 6.984

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLowry, Paul Benjamin-
dc.contributor.authorMoody, Gregory D.-
dc.contributor.authorGaskin, James-
dc.contributor.authorGalletta, Dennis F.-
dc.contributor.authorHumpherys, Sean L.-
dc.contributor.authorBarlow, Jordan B.-
dc.contributor.authorWilson, David W.-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-27T07:21:45Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-27T07:21:45Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationMIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 2013, v. 37, n. 4, p. 993-1012-
dc.identifier.issn0276-7783-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/233829-
dc.description.abstractInformation systems journal rankings and ratings help scholars focus their publishing efforts and are widely used surrogates for judging the quality of research. Over the years, numerous approaches have been used to rank IS journals, approaches such as citation metrics, school lists, acceptance rates, and expert assessments. However, the results of these approaches often conflict due to a host of validity concerns. In the current scientometric study, we make significant strides toward correcting for these limitations in the ranking of mainstream IS journals. We compare expert rankings to bibliometric measures such as the ISI Impact Factor™, the h-index, and social network analysis metrics. Among other findings, we conclude that bibliometric measures provide very similar results to expert-based methods in determining a tiered structure of IS journals, thereby suggesting that bibliometrics can be a complete, less expensive, and more efficient substitute for expert assessment. We also find strong support for seven of the eight journals in the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars' "basket" of journals. A cluster analysis of our results indicates a twotiered separation in the quality of the highest quality IS journals-with MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, and Journal of Management Information Systems belonging, in that order, to the highest A+ tier. Journal quality metrics fit nicely into the sociology of science literature and can be useful in models that attempt to explain how knowledge disseminates through scientific communities.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofMIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems-
dc.subjectImpact factor-
dc.subjectH-index-
dc.subjectComposite ranking or rating-
dc.subjectNomologies for dissemination of scientific knowledge-
dc.subjectSenS-8-
dc.subjectSenS-6-
dc.subjectExpert opinion-
dc.subjectAIS Senior Scholars basket of journals-
dc.subjectBibliometrics-
dc.subjectSelf-citation-
dc.subjectScientometrics-
dc.subjectSocial network analysis-
dc.subjectJournal quality-
dc.subjectInformation systems journal rankings-
dc.titleEvaluating journal quality and the association for information systems senior scholars' journal basket via bibliometric measures: Do expert journal assessments add value?-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84887453422-
dc.identifier.volume37-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage993-
dc.identifier.epage1012-
dc.identifier.eissn2162-9730-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats