The American Sociologist

, Volume 47, Issue 2–3, pp 192–224 | Cite as

Journal Rankings in Sociology: Using the H Index with Google Scholar

Article

Abstract

There is considerable interest in the ranking of journals, given the intense pressure to place articles in the “top” journals. In this article, a new index, h, and a new source of data—Google Scholar – are introduced, and a number of advantages of this methodology to assessing journals are noted. This approach is attractive because it provides a more robust account of the scholarly enterprise than do the standard Journal Citation Reports. Readily available software enables do-it-yourself assessments of journals, including those not otherwise covered, and enable the journal selection process to become a research endeavor that identifies particular articles of interest. While some critics are skeptical about the visibility and impact of sociological research, the evidence presented here indicates that most sociology journals produce a steady stream of papers that garner considerable attention. While the position of individual journals varies across measures, there is a high degree commonality across these measurement approaches. A clear hierarchy of journals remains no matter what assessment metric is used. Moreover, data over time indicate that the hierarchy of journals is highly stable and self-perpetuating. Yet highly visible articles do appear in journals outside the set of elite journals. In short, the h index provides a more comprehensive picture of the output and noteworthy consequences of sociology journals than do than standard impact scores, even though the overall ranking of journals does not markedly change.

Keywords

Sociology journals Citations Journal rankings H index Google scholar 

References

  1. Adkins, D., & Budd, J. (2006). Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty. Library & Information Science Research, 28(3), 374–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, M. P. (2003). “The ‘core influence’ of journals in sociology revisited.” Footnotes (American Sociological Association Newsletter). December. http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/dec03/fn11.html
  3. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3–72.Google Scholar
  4. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). What do we know about the h index?”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1391–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clemens, E. S., Powell, W. W., McIlwaine, K., & Okamoto, D. (1995). Careers in print: books, journals, and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 433–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronin, B., Snyder, H., & Atkins, H. (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: a study of sociology.”. Journal of Documentation, 53(3), 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duncan, O. D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In A. J. Reiss (Ed.), Occupations and social status (pp. 109–138). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Espeland, W. & Sauder, M. (2016). By the numbers: how media rankings changed legal education in America (Russell Sage Foundation).Google Scholar
  10. Frodeman, R. (2010). Introduction. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), 295(1), 90–93 (January 4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giles, M. W., & Garand, J. C. (2007). Ranking political science journals: reputational and citational approaches. Political Science & Politics, 40(4), 741–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Google Scholar. (2015). http://scholar.google.com/.
  14. Harzing, A. W. (2011). The publish or perish book. Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Tamara Software Research (Publisher). Available online.Google Scholar
  15. Harzing, A. W. (2015). Publish or perish, Version 4, available at www.harzing.com/pop.htm.
  16. Harzing, A.-W., & van der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: an alternative metric t o measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 60(1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output”. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holden, G., Rosenberg, G., Barker, K., & Onghena, P. (2006). “An assessment of the predictive validity of impact factor scores: implications for academic employment decisions in social work.”. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(6), 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ISI Web of Science. (2015). www.isiknowledge.com/.
  20. Jacobs, J. A. (2005). ASR’s greatest hits. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, J. A. (2007). Further reflections on ASR’s greatest hits. The American Sociologist, 38(1), 99–131. Also available on the American Sociological Review webpage, http://www.asanet.org/journals/asr/2005/043sup1.pdf.
  22. Jacobs, J. A. (2009). Where credit is due: assessing the visibility of articles published in gender & society with Google Scholar. Gender & Society, 23(6), 817–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, J. A. (2013). In defense of disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and specialization in the research university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs, J. A., & Frickel, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: a critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43–66. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/eprint/yyThexc9vmVNN4DkFjKC/full/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115954.
  25. Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. P., & Stengos, T. (2003). Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the European Economoic Association, 1(6), 1346–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2009). The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 858–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leydesdorfff, L. (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox?”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 60(7), 1327–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lluch, J. O. (2005). “Some considerations on the use of the impact factor of scientific journals as a tool to valuate research in psychology.” Scientometrics 65(2):189–197Google Scholar
  29. Luzer, D. (2013). No one really reads academic papers.” Washington Monthly. February 19. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/academics_do_a_lot_of.php
  30. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Mathew effect in science.” Science 159, no. 3810, 5 January. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 56–63). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moed, H. F. (2005). “Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures.” Current Science 89(12) 25 December 1990–1996.Google Scholar
  34. Moed, H. F., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995). Improving the accuracy of institute for scientific information’s journal impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 461–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(February 15), 498–502.Google Scholar
  36. Shapiro, F. R. (2000). The most-cited law reviews. Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1540–1554.Google Scholar
  37. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer-review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hisch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scienometrics, 67(3), 491–5002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Population Studies CenterUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations