Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/172207 
Year of Publication: 
2017
Series/Report no.: 
DICE Discussion Paper No. 277
Publisher: 
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), Düsseldorf
Abstract: 
In broad parts of the scientific community the position in publication performance rankings, based on journal quality ratings is seen as highly reputational for the scientist. This contribution provides evidence that, at least in economics, such publication performance measures can not always be reconciled with measures for academic influence such as citation-based measures. We analyze data from the Scopus database as well as from the prestigious German-based Handelsblatt ranking for 100 renowned economists (lifetime achievement). Scholarly influence is proxied by various bibliometric indicators such as the number of citations, the h-index, the citations of the most cited paper as well as the hardly honorable Pi-Beta-score ("Publications Ignored, By Even The Author(s)"). We argue that publication performance measures based on journal ratings, such as the Handelsblatt rankings, are not good proxies for an economist's impact within the scientific community. From this perspective the value of publication performance rankings based on journal quality ratings is questionable.
Subjects: 
economics
academic reputation
academic rankings
influence
citations
Scopus
Handelsblatt ranking
academic journals
JEL: 
A12
A14
ISBN: 
978-3-86304-276-9
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
497.49 kB





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