Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Downloads 11
Views 56
Collected by 1
Followed by 5

Total impact ?

    Send a

    Loet has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0

     

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user Loet Leydesdorff Trusted member

    Professor

    University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

    How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinarity. The case of innovation studies in business and management

    Export to Mendeley

    While interdisciplinary research (IDR) is valued as a means of encouraging scientific breakthroughs, innovation and socially relevant science, it is also widely perceived as being at a disadvantage in research evaluations. Various qualitative studies have provided evidence that peer review tends to be biased against IDR. However, quantitative investigations on this claim have been few and inconclusive. This paper provides new quantitative evidence of how journal rankings can disadvantage IDR in evaluation. Using publication data it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of innovation studies units with business and management schools in the UK. The paper uses various mappings and metrics to show that innovation studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary than business and management schools. It shows that the top journals in the Association of Business Schools' rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower ranked journals, and that this bias results in a more favourable performance assessment of the business and management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. Lastly, it demonstrates how a citation-based analysis (generally agreed to be more accurate) challenges the ranking-based assessment. In summary, the investigation illustrates how allegedly 'excellence-based' journal rankings have a bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. Given the high correlation between journal-ranks and ratings in UK's research assessment, this bias is likely to negatively affect the valuation of interdisciplinary organisations and encourage publication patterns to be more compliant with disciplinary authority. We discuss the general implications that the mechanism of IDR supression illuminated here may hold.

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinarity. The case of innovation studies in business and management
    Author(s) : Ismael Rafols, Loet Leydesdorff, Alice O'Hare, Paul Nightingale, Andy Stirling
    Abstract : While interdisciplinary research (IDR) is valued as a means of encouraging scientific breakthroughs, innovation and socially relevant science, it is also widely perceived as being at a disadvantage in research evaluations. Various qualitative studies have provided evidence that peer review tends to be biased against IDR. However, quantitative investigations on this claim have been few and inconclusive. This paper provides new quantitative evidence of how journal rankings can disadvantage IDR in evaluation. Using publication data it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of innovation studies units with business and management schools in the UK. The paper uses various mappings and metrics to show that innovation studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary than business and management schools. It shows that the top journals in the Association of Business Schools' rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower ranked journals, and that this bias results in a more favourable performance assessment of the business and management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. Lastly, it demonstrates how a citation-based analysis (generally agreed to be more accurate) challenges the ranking-based assessment. In summary, the investigation illustrates how allegedly 'excellence-based' journal rankings have a bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. Given the high correlation between journal-ranks and ratings in UK's research assessment, this bias is likely to negatively affect the valuation of interdisciplinary organisations and encourage publication patterns to be more compliant with disciplinary authority. We discuss the general implications that the mechanism of IDR supression illuminated here may hold.
    Subject : unspecified
    Area : Other
    Language : English
    Year : 2011

    Affiliations University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
    Journal : Arxiv preprint arXiv11051227
    Url : http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1227

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    Loet's Peer Evaluation activity

    Downloads 11
    Views 56
    Collected by 1
    Followed by 5
    • Lupicinio Iñiguez-Rueda, Professor, Departament de Psicologia Social, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
    • Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza, Research Fellow, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
    • Aalam Wassef, Publisher, Founder of Peer Evaluation, Galerie Conradi.
    • Juan Muñoz-Justicia, Professor, Departament de Psicologia Social, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
    • Clement Levallois, Post Doctorate, Rotterdam School of Management, E-humanities group of the KNAW, Erasmus Studio, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Gephi Consortium.

    Loet has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.