EconStor >
ifo Institut – Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München >
CESifo Working Papers, CESifo Group Munich >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/26488
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFrey, Bruno S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRost, Katjaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-12-03en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-28T08:47:26Z-
dc.date.available2009-07-28T08:47:26Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/26488-
dc.description.abstractPublication and citation rankings have become major indicators of the scientific worth of universities and countries, and determine to a large extent the career of individual scholars. We argue that such rankings do not effectively measure research quality, which should be the essence of evaluation. For that reason, an alternative ranking is developed as a quality indicator, based on membership on academic editorial boards of professional journals. It turns out that especially the ranking of individual scholars is far from objective. The results differ markedly, depending on whether research quantity or research quality is considered. Even quantity rankings are not objective; two citation rankings, based on different samples, produce entirely different results. It follows that any career decisions based on rankings are dominated by chance and do not reflect research quality. Instead of propagating a ranking based on board membership as the gold standard, we suggest that committees make use of this quality indicator to find members who, in turn, evaluate the research quality of individual scholars.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherCESifo Münchenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCESifo working paper 2443en_US
dc.subject.jelH43en_US
dc.subject.jelL15en_US
dc.subject.jelO38en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordRankingsen_US
dc.subject.keyworduniversitiesen_US
dc.subject.keywordscholarsen_US
dc.subject.keywordpublicationsen_US
dc.subject.keywordcitationsen_US
dc.subject.stwPublikationsanalyseen_US
dc.subject.stwWirtschaftswissenschaftleren_US
dc.subject.stwWirtschaftsforschungen_US
dc.subject.stwKritiken_US
dc.subject.stwWelten_US
dc.titleDo rankings reflect research quality?en_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn587095695en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-
Appears in Collections:CESifo Working Papers, CESifo Group Munich

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
587095695.PDF799.29 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.