Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Evaluating the quality of academic journals is becoming increasing important within the context of research performance evaluation. Traditionally, journals have been ranked by peer review lists such as that of the Association of Business Schools (UK) or though their journal impact factor (JIF). Hover, several new indicators have been developed, such as the h-index, SJR, SNIP and the Eigenfactor which take into account different factors and therefore have their own particular biases.   evaluate these metrics both theoretically and also through an empirical study of a large set of business and management journals.  show that even though the indicators appear highly correlated in fact they lead to large differences in journal rankings.  contextualise our results in terms of the UK's large scale research assessment exercise (the RAE/REF) and particularly the ABS journal ranking list.  conclude that no one indicator is superior but that the h-index (which includes the productivity of a journal) and SNIP (which aims to normalise for field effects) may be the most effective at the moment.
['John Mingers', 'Liying Yang']
I am writing a research paper on a idea Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management"}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Evaluating the quality of academic journals is becoming increasing important within the context of research performance evaluation. Traditionally, journals have been ranked by peer review lists such as that of the Association of Business Schools (UK) or though their journal impact factor (JIF). Hover, several new indicators have been developed, such as the h-index, SJR, SNIP and the Eigenfactor which take into account different factors and therefore have their own particular biases.   evaluate these metrics both theoretically and also through an empirical study of a large set of business and management journals.  show that even though the indicators appear highly correlated in fact they lead to large differences in journal rankings.  contextualise our results in terms of the UK's large scale research assessment exercise (the RAE/REF) and particularly the ABS journal ranking list.  conclude that no one indicator is superior but that the h-index (which includes the productivity of a journal) and SNIP (which aims to normalise for field effects) may be the most effective at the moment."}]