Source author record

John Mingers

John Mingers appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Digital Libraries

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

1topics

3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2016arXiv

Evaluating Journal Quality: A Review of Journal Citation Indicators and Ranking in Business and Management

Evaluating the quality of academic journal is becoming increasing important within the context of research performance evaluation. Traditionally, journals have been ranked by peer review lists such as that of the Association of Business Schools (UK) or though their journal impact factor (JIF). However, several new indicators have been developed, such as the h-index, SJR, SNIP and the Eigenfactor which take into account different factors and therefore have their own particular biases. In this paper we evaluate these metrics both theoretically and also through an empirical study of a large set of business and management journals. We show that even though the indicators appear highly correlated in fact they lead to large differences in journal rankings. We contextualize our results in terms of the UK's large scale research assessment exercise (the RAE/REF) and particularly the ABS journal ranking list. We conclude that no one indicator is superior but that the h-index (which includes the productivity of a journal) and SNIP (which aims to normalize for field effects) may be the most effective at the moment.

preprint2015arXiv

A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics

Scientometrics is the study of the quantitative aspects of the process of science as a communication system. It is centrally, but not only, concerned with the analysis of citations in the academic literature. In recent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and evaluation of research performance. In this review we consider: the historical development of scientometrics, sources of citation data, citation metrics and the "laws" of scientometrics, normalisation, journal impact factors and other journal metrics, visualising and mapping science, evaluation and policy, and future developments.

preprint2015arXiv

Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater: The Undesirable Effects of National Research Assessment Exercises on Research

The evaluation of the quality of research at a national level has become increasingly common. The UK has been at the forefront of this trend having undertaken many assessments since 1986, the latest being the Research Excellence Framework in 2014. The argument of this paper is that, whatever the intended results in terms of evaluating and improving research, there have been many, presumably unintended, results that are highly undesirable for research and the university community more generally. We situate our analysis using Bourdieu's theory of cultural reproduction and then focus on the peculiarities of the 2008 RAE and the 2014 REF the rules of which allowed for, and indeed encouraged, significant game-playing on the part of striving universities. We conclude with practical recommendations to maintain the general intention of research assessment without the undesirable side-effects.

preprint2012arXiv

Identifying Research Fields within Business and Management: A Journal Cross-Citation Analysis

A discipline such as business and management (B&M) is very broad and has many fields within it, ranging from fairly scientific ones such as management science or economics to softer ones such as information systems. There are at least two reasons why it is important to identify these sub-fields accurately. Firstly, for the purpose of normalizing citation data as it is well known that citation rates vary significantly between different disciplines. Secondly, because journal rankings and lists tend to split their classifications into different subjects, for example the the Association of Business Schools (ABS) list, which is a standard in the UK, has 22 different fields. Unfortunately, at the moment these are created in an ad hoc manner with no underlying rigour. The purpose of this paper is to identify possible sub-fields in B&M rigorously based on actual citation patterns. We have examined 450 journals in B&M which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and analysed the cross-citation rates between them enabling us to generate sets of coherent and consistent sub-fields that minimise the extent to which journals appear in several categories. Implications and limitations of the analysis are discussed

Institution

Affiliation not imported yet

This author record came from a source that does not expose affiliation metadata. Once the author claims the profile or we enrich the record from another provider, this section will link to the concrete institution.

Topic footprint