Open Access
Research Article
An apologia for using journal prestige in academic employment decisions: An asymmetric information perspective
*M. Ryan HaleyCorresponding authorhaley@uwosh.eduDepartment of Economics University of Wisconsin Oshkosh 800 Algoma Blvd.Oshkosh, WI, 54901, U.S.A.View full profile →
* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details
- Published Online:
- 12 Dec 2023
- Article type:
- Research Article
- Language:
- EN
- Article no.:
- CJSIM-2022-0091
- Pages:
- 373–379
Abstract
Using journal prestige to gauge the quality of research articles has been criticized by some scholars in the academic research assessment literature. These critics argue that citation-based metrics, while imperfect, are better suited to assessing article quality. This paper counters these beliefs by describing specific research assessment contexts where journal prestige is likely to be the superior mode of assessment. To do so, academic employment decisions are framed as asymmetric information problems wherein the research evaluating body has less information about a scholar’s true abilities than the scholar. Signaling Theory therefore offers a logical explanation for using journal prestige as a measure of research quality during academic contract renewals and promotions wherein recent research accomplishments are of preeminent importance. While journal prestige is an imperfect measure of article quality (as are citation counts), understanding it as a credible signal in an asymmetric information environment proffers a fundamental explanation for its applicability in academic assessment decisions.
Keywords
Subject Classifications
A1M5
References
[1] Aksnes, D. & A. Rip. Researchers’ Perceptions of Citations. Research Policy, 38, 895-905 (2009).[2] Alonso, S., Cabrerizo F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & F. Herrera. h-Index: A Review Focused in its Variants, Computation and Standardization for Different Scientific Fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273-289 (2009).[3] Anauati, V., Galiani, S., & R. Gálvez. Quantifying the Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles Across Fields of Economic Research. Economic Inquiry, 54, 1339-1355 (2016).[4] Andersen, J. An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index. Journal of Informetrics, 11: 455-465 (2017).[5] Bar-Ilan, J., & G. Halevi. Post Retraction Citations in Context: A Case Study. Scientometrics, 113, 547-565 (2017).[6] Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. & Daniel, H-D. A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 346-359 (2011).[7] Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 121-129 (2006).[8] Eisenberg, T. & M. Wells. Ranking Law Journals and the Limits of Journal Citation Reports. Economic Inquiry, 52, 1301-1314 (2014).[9] Haley, M. Ranking Top Economics and Finance Journals Using Microsoft Academic Search versus Google Scholar: How Does the New Publish or Perish Option Compare? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 1079-1084 (2014).[10] Haley, M. A Ranking of Journals for the Aspiring Health Economist. Applied Economics, 48, 1710-1718 (2016).[11] Haley, M. On the Inauspicious Incentives of the Scholar-level H-index: An Economist’s Take on Collusive and Coercive Citation. Applied Economics Letters, 24, 85-89 (2017).[12] Haley, M. An EigenFactor-Weighted Power Mean Generalization of the Euclidean Index. PLOS ONE. Published 22 February 2019 (online) (2019a). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212760.[13] Haley, M. “A Simple Paradigm for Augmenting the Euclidean index to Reflect Journal Impact and Visibility.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. (2019b). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24224[14] Haley, M. & M. McGee. A Parametric “Parent Metric” Approach for Comparing Maximum-Normalized Journal Ranking Metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69, 172-176 (2018).[15] Haley, M. & M. McGee. “Jointly valuing journal visibility and author citation count: An axiomatic approach.“ Journal of Informatics, 14, 100988 (2020).[16] Hirsch, J. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 102, 16569-16572 (2005).[17] Iglesias, J., & C. Pecharromán. Scaling the h-index for Different Scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73, 303-320 (2007).[18] Leydesdorff, L., Zhou, P., & L. Bornmann. How Can Impact Factors be Normalized Across Fields of Science? An Assessment in Terms of Percentile Ranks and Fractional Counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 96-107 (2013).[19] Nattavudh, P., Riyanto, Y., & J. Knetsch. Lower-rated publications do lower academics’ judgments of publication lists: Evidence from a survey experiment of economists. Journal of Economic Psychology, 66, 33-44 (2018).[20] Oswald, A. An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers. Economica, 74, 21-31 (2007).[21] Perry, M., & P. Reny. How To Count Citations If You Must. The American Economic Review, 106, 2722-2741 (2016).[22] Pudovkin, A. & E. Garfield. Rank-Normalization Impact Factor: A way to Compare Journal Performance Across Subject Categories. Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41, 507-515 (2004).[23] Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & C. Castellano. Universality of Citation Distributions: Toward an Objective Measure of Scientific Impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 105: 17268-17272 (2008).[24] Schreiber, M. To share the fame in a fair way, h_m modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts.’’ New Journal of Physics, 10, 040201 (2008).[25] Seglen, P. Why the Impact Factor of Journals Should not be Used for Evaluating Research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498-502 (1997).[26] Spence, M. Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374 (1973).[27] Wang, J. Citation Time Window Choice for Research Impact Evaluation. Scientometrics, 94, 851-872 (2013).[28] Wilhite, A., & E. Fong. Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing. Science, 335, 542-543 (2012).
Views: 121Downloads: 7Citations: 0
