Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preference-neutral attribute weights in the journal-ranking problem

  • Case-oriented Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

A linear programming model is proposed for assigning linear attribute weights in the journal-ranking problem. The constraints in the model are derived solely from any quasi-dominance relations that can be established between the journals. The objective function of the model minimizes the maximum difference between the implied valuations for the pair of journals that define a constraint. In the sense that personal inputs are not introduced, the derived weights are preference neutral. The feasibility of the procedure is demonstrated for two sets of data. By considering various random samples of journals from the larger data set, it is shown that large differences can emerge in the attribute weights and in the journal rankings from different samples of journals, even when the sample sizes are large relative to the population size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Tse ACB (2001). Using mathematical programming to solve large ranking problems. J Opl Res Soc 52: 1144–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1971). Problems and methods with multiple objective functions. Math Programming 1: 239–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias LC and Climaco JN (2000). Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters. J Opl Res Soc 51: 1070–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner JL and Corner PD (1995). Characteristics of decisions in decision analysis practice. J Opl Res Soc 46: 304–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron FH and Barrett BE (1996). Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Mngt Sci 42: 1515–1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köksalan MM and Taner OV (1992). An approach for finding the most preferred alternative in the presence of multiple criteria. Eur J Opl Res 60: 52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun M, Stam A and Steuer RE (1996). Solving multiple objective programming problems using feed-forward neural networks: the interactive FFANN procedure. Mngt Sci 42: 835–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athanassopoulos AD and Podinovski VV (1997). Dominance and potential optimally in multiple criteria decision analysis with imprecise information. J Opl Res Soc 48: 142–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podinovsky VV (1999). A DSS for multiple criteria decision analysis with imprecisely specified trade-offs. Eur J Opl Res 113: 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caporaletti LE, Dulá JH and Womer NK (1999). Performance evaluation based on multiple attributes with nonparametric frontiers. Omega 27: 637–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown LD (1994). Minimaxity, more or less. In: Gupta SS and Berger JO (eds). Statistical Decision Theory and Related Topics. Springer: New York, pp 1–17.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brown LD (2000). An essay on statistical decision theory. J Am Stat Assoc 95: 1277–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strawderman WE (2000). Minimaxity. J Am Stat Assoc 95: 1364–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesh GK, Chandy PR and Henderson GV (1990). Awareness and evaluation of selected marketing journals inside and outside discipline: an empirical study. Akron Bus Econ Rev 21: 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall JG and Buckland WR (1971). A Dictionary of Statistical Terms, 3rd edn. Hafner Publishing Company, Inc.: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue JM and Fox JB (2000). A multi-method evaluation of journals in the decision and management sciences by US academics. Omega 28: 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer I and Harvey N (1999). Combining forecasts: What information do judges need to outperform the simple average? Int J Forecasting 17: 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makridakis S and Hibron H (2000). The M3-Competition: results, conclusions and implications. Int J Forecasting 16: 451–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first draft of this paper was written during my tenure as Adjunct Professor in the IDS Department at San Diego State University, where I enjoyed the considerable support and collegiality of the department and of the College of Business Administration faculty. The paper was revised into the present draft while I served as Visiting Professor in the EF Department of the City University of Hong Kong. Earlier financial support for the project in the form of a Summer Research Grant from the Warrington College of Business Administration of the University of Florida is also gratefully acknowledged. Mr. Kerim Yalim provided invaluable computer programming and computational assistance, and Professor Joan Donohue was kind enough to make available to me the appropriate formulae for computing the attribute scores that are used in the primary illustration. I, however, bear sole responsibility for the product that has resulted from all of this help.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

    I Horowitz

Authors
  1. I Horowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I Horowitz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horowitz, I. Preference-neutral attribute weights in the journal-ranking problem. J Oper Res Soc 54, 452–457 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601531

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601531

Keywords

Search

Navigation