Paper detail

Computing a consensus journal meta-ranking using paired comparisons and adaptive lasso estimators

In a "publish-or-perish culture", the ranking of scientific journals plays a central role in assessing performance in the current research environment. With a wide range of existing methods and approaches to deriving journal rankings, meta-rankings have gained popularity as a means of aggregating different information sources. In this paper, we propose a method to create a consensus meta-ranking using heterogeneous journal rankings. Using a parametric model for paired comparison data we estimate quality scores for 58 journals in the OR/MS community, which together with a shrinkage procedure allows for the identification of clusters of journals with similar quality. The use of paired comparisons provides a flexible framework for deriving a consensus score while eliminating the problem of data missingness.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.