Correlation Between Perception-Based Journal Rankings and the Journal Impact Factor (JIF): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

References

• Alberts, B. (2013). Impact factor distortions. Science, 340, 787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Althouse, B. M., West, J. D., Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. (2009). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 27–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bontis, N., & Serenko, A. (2009). A follow-up ranking of academic journals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 16–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbone, P. (2014). Impact factor and research quality. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, 17(6), 34–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (2015). Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 45(2), 139–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donohue, J. M., & Fox, J. B. (2000). A multi-method evaluation of journals in the decision and management sciences by US academics. Omega, 28(1), 17–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M. (2011). Is VHB-JOURQUAL2 a good measure of scientific quality? Assessing the validity of the major business journal ranking in German-speaking countries. Business Research, 4(2), 241–274.
   Google Scholar
• Elkins, M. R., Maher, C. G., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Sherrington, C. (2010). Correlation between the journal impact factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics, 85(1), 81–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, D. B. (2014). The impact factor: A useful indicator of journal quality or fatally flawed? Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 34(1), 4–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ennas, G., Biggio, B., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2015). Data-driven journal meta-ranking in business and management. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1911–1929.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Extejt, M. M., & Smith, J. E. (1990). The behavioral sciences and management: An evaluation of relevant journals. Journal of Management, 16(3), 539–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falagas, M. E., & Alexiou, V. G. (2008). The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56, 223–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, T. D., Dorfman, M. S., & Ferguson, W. L. (2005). Risk management and insurance-related journals: A survey of risk and insurance academics. Risk Management & Insurance Review, 8(1), 65–101.
   Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemser, G., de Bont, C., Hekkert, P., & Friedman, K. (2012). Quality perceptions of design journals: The design scholars' perspective. Design Studies, 33(1), 4–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 10, 3–8.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, H., & Maier, G. (2010). The use and valuation of journals in planning scholarship: Peer assessment versus impact factors. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 30(1), 66–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, P. L. K., & Gross, E. M. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science, 66(1712), 385–389.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hall, C. M. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32(1), 16–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, J. (2013). Ranking journals. The Economic Journal, 123(570), F202–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalalian, M. (2015). The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them. Electronic Physician, 7, 1069–1072.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katerattanakul, P., Razi, M., Han, B., & Kam, H. J. (2005). Consistency and concern on IS journal rankings. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 7(2), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Ke, Q., & Cheng, Y. (2015). Applications of meta-analysis to library and information science research: Content analysis. Library and Information Science Research, 37(4), 370–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. V., & Chow, J. W. (2008). North American perception of the prestige of biomechanics serials. Gait & Posture, 27(4), 559–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, B. R., Templeton, G. F., & Luo, X. (2007). A scientometric investigation into the validity of IS journal quality measures. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(12), 619–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, X. L., Gai, S. S., Zhang, S. L., Wang, P., & Eriksson, K. (2015). An analysis of peer-reviewed scores and impact factors with different citation time windows: A case study of 28 ophthalmologic journals. Plos One, 10(8), e0135583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, G. (2007). What do we think are the most important journals for regional science? Scienze Regionali, 6, 5–34.
   Google Scholar
• McKinnon, A. C. (2013). Starry-eyed: Journal rankings and the future of logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 43, 6–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meggs, S. M., & Gustina, C. F. (2013). On journal ranking: A conundrum for interior design. Journal of Interior Design, 38(2), 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith, J. R., Steward, M. D., & Lewis, B. R. (2011). Knowledge dissemination in operations management: Published perceptions versus academic reality. Omega, 39(4), 435–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mingers, J., & Harzing, A. W. (2007). Ranking journals in business and management: A statistical analysis of the Harzing data set. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 303–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Open Medicine, 3, e123–130.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nature Publishing Group. (2015). Author insights 2015 survey. Retrieved from http://figshare.com/articles/Author_Insights_2015_survey/1425362
   Google Scholar
• Nisonger, T. E., & Davis, C. H. (2005). The perception of library and information science journals by LIS education deans and ARL library directors: A replication of the Kohl-Davis study. College and Research Libraries, 66(4), 341–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oltheten, E., Theoharakis, V., & Travlos, N. G. (2005). Faculty perceptions and readership patterns of finance journals: A global view. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 40(1), 223–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2015). Ranking games. Evaluation Review, 39(1), 102–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagano, R. (2013). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Pechlaner, H., Zehrer, A., Matzler, K., & Abfalter, D. (2004). A ranking of international tourism and hospitality journals. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 328–332.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, K., Haslam, S. A., Daniels, K., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2014). Experts' judgments of management journal quality: An identity concerns model. Journal of Management, 40, 1785–1812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polonsky, M. J., Jones, G., & Kearsley, M. J. (1999). Accessibility: An alternative method of ranking marketing journals? Journal of Marketing Education, 21(3), 181–193.
   Google Scholar
• Reniers, G., & Anthone, Y. (2012). A ranking of safety journals using different measurement methods. Safety Science, 50(7), 1445–1451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau, S. (2008). Journal evaluation by environmental and resource economists: A survey. Scientometrics, 77(2), 223–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 42--46.
   Google Scholar
• Sangster, A. (2015). You cannot judge a book by its cover: The problems with journal rankings. Accounting Education, 24, 175–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxton, M. L. (2006). Meta-analysis in library and information science: Method, history, and recommendations for reporting research. Library Trends, 55(1), 158–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seglen, P. O. (1998). Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica, 69(3), 224–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers, S. L., Mathiesen, S. G., Perry, R., & Smith, T. (2004). Evaluation of social work journal quality: Citation versus reputation approaches. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(1), 143–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serenko, A. (2010). The development of an AI journal ranking based on the revealed preference approach. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 447–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2013). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2013 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 307–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serenko, A., & Dohan, M. (2011). Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from the field of artificial intelligence. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 629–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonderstrup-Andersen, E. M., & Sonderstrup-Andersen, H. H. K. (2008). An investigation into diabetes researcher's perceptions of the journal impact factor—Reconsidering evaluating research. Scientometrics, 76(2), 391–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steward, M. D., & Lewis, B. R. (2010). A comprehensive analysis of marketing journal rankings. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1), 75–92.
   Google Scholar
• Stonebraker, J. S., Gil, E., Kirkwood, C. W., & Handfield, R. B. (2012). Impact factor as a metric to assess journals where OM research is published. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 24–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su, P., Shang, C., & Shen, Q. (2013). Link-based approach for bibliometric journal ranking. Soft Computing, 17(12), 2399–2410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theoharakis, V., & Skordia, M. (2003). How do statisticians perceive statistics journals? The American Statistician, 57(2), 115–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson Reuters. (2012). Journal citation reports. Retrieved from http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/help/h_impfact.htm
   Google Scholar
• Truex, D., Takeda, H., & Cuellar, M. (2009). Assessing scholarly influence: Using the Hirsch indices to reframe the discourse. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 10(7), 560–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, C. F., Hu, Y. H., & Ke, S. W. G. (2014). A Borda count approach to combine subjective and objective based MIS journal rankings. Online Information Review, 38(4), 469–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vana, L., Hochreiter, R., & Hornik, K. (2016). Computing a journal meta-ranking using paired comparisons and adaptive lasso estimators. Scientometrics, 106(1), 229–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2015). Stakeholder perspectives on citation and peer-based rankings of higher education journals. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, J., Kang, Q., & Song, Z. (2015). The current state of systematic reviews in library and information studies. Library & Information Science Research, 37(4), 296–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Z., & Gao, C. (2012). Ranking marketing journals by using social network analysis. In H. Tan (Ed.), Technology for education and learning (pp. 623–629). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Yates, E. J., & Dixon, L. C. (2015). PageRank as a method to rank biomedical literature by importance. Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 10(1), 1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yue, W., Wilson, C. S., & Boller, F. (2007). Peer assessment of journal quality in clinical neurology. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 95(1), 70–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zupanc, G. K. H. (2014). Impact beyond the impact factor. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 200, 113–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar