When standard network measures fail to rank journals: A theoretical and empirical analysis
METADATA ONLY
Loading...
Author / Producer
Date
2021-06
Publication Type
Working Paper
ETH Bibliography
yes
Citations
Altmetric
METADATA ONLY
Data
Rights / License
Abstract
Journal rankings are widely used and are often based on citation data in combination with a network perspective. We argue that some of these network-based rankings can produce misleading results. From a theoretical point of view, we show that the standard network modelling approach of citation data at the journal level (i.e., the projection of paper citations onto journals) introduces fictitious relations among journals. To overcome this problem, we propose a citation path perspective, and empirically show that rankings based on the network and the citation path perspective are very different. Based on our theoretical and empirical analysis, we highlight the limitations of standard network metrics, and propose a method to overcome these limitations and compute journal rankings.
Permanent link
Publication status
published
External links
Editor
Book title
Journal / series
Volume
Pages / Article No.
2106.15541
Publisher
Cornell University
Event
Edition / version
Methods
Software
Geographic location
Date collected
Date created
Subject
Journal citation network; Journal Rankings; PageRank; Citation paths
Organisational unit
03682 - Schweitzer, Frank (emeritus) / Schweitzer, Frank (emeritus)
Notes
Funding
Related publications and datasets
Is previous version of: