Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=2350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Stressing that some universities have adopted unrealistic requirements for tenure of information systems (IS) faculty members, a recent editorial in MIS Quarterly contends that the group of premier IS journals needs to be generally recognized as having more than just two members. This article introduces the publication power approach to identifying the premier IS journals, and it does indeed find that there are more than two. A journal's publication power is calculated from the actual publishing behaviors of full-time, tenured IS faculty members at a sizable set of leading research universities. The underlying premise is that these researchers produce excellent work, collectively spanning the IS field's subject matter, and that the greatest concentrations of their collective work appear in highest visibility, most important journals suitable for its subject matter. The new empirically based approach to identifying premier IS journals (and, more broadly, identifying journals that figure most prominently in publishing activity of tenured IS researchers) offers an attractive alternative to promulgations by individuals or cliques (possibly based on outdated tradition or vested interests), to opinion surveys (subjective, possibly ill-informed, vague about rating criteria, and/or biased in various ways), and to citation analyses (which ignore semantics of references and, in the case of ISI impact factors, have additional problems that cast considerable doubt on their meaningfulness within the IS field and its subdisciplines). Results of the publication power approach can be applied and supplemented according to needs of a particular university in setting its evaluation standards for IS tenure, promotion, and merit decisions.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 3719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=3719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 3719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3719)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In most disciplines of scholarly endeavor, there are many efforts at ranking research journals. There are two common methods for such efforts. One of these is based on tabulations of opinions offered by persons having some kind of relationship with the discipline. The other is based on analyses of the extent to which a journal's articles have been cited by papers appearing in some selected set of publications. In either case, construction of a journal ranking for a discipline makes no effort to distinguish between private and public universities. That is, data are aggregated from both private and public faculty researchers. It is thus assumed that the resultant ranking is applicable for both kinds of institutions. But, is this assumption reasonable? The answer is very important because these rankings are applied in the evaluation of promotion, tenure, and merit cases of faculty members working in a discipline. Here, we examine this widespread bibliometric assumption through the use of a ranking methodology that is based on the actual publishing behaviors of tenured researchers in a discipline. The method is used to study the behaviors of researchers at leading private universities versus those at leading public universities. Illustrating this approach within the information systems discipline, we find that there are indeed different publication patterns for the private versus public institutions. This finding suggests that journal-ranking exercises should not ignore private-public distinctions and that care should be taken to avoid evaluation standards that confound private and public rankings of journals.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 4531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=4531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 4531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4531)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Understanding relative statures of channels for disseminating knowledge is of practical interest to both generators and consumers of knowledge flows. For generators, stature can influence attractiveness of alternative dissemination routes and deliberations of those who assess generator performance. For knowledge consumers, channel stature may influence knowledge content to which they are exposed. This study introduces a novel approach to conceptualizing and measuring stature of knowledge-dissemination channels: the power-impact (PI) technique. It is a flexible technique having 3 complementary variants, giving holistic insights about channel stature by accounting for both attraction of knowledge generators to a distribution channel and degree to which knowledge consumers choose to use a channel's knowledge content. Each PI variant is expressed in terms of multiple parameters, permitting customization of stature evaluation to suit its user's preferences. In the spirit of analytics, each PI variant is driven by objective evidence of actual behaviors. The PI technique is based on 2 building blocks: (a) power that channels have for attracting results of generators' knowledge work, and (b) impact that channel contents' exhibit on prospective recipients. Feasibility and functionality of the PI-technique design are demonstrated by applying it to solve a problem of journal stature evaluation for the information-systems discipline.