IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v24y1996i5p603-606.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citation as effortful voting: A reply to ones, Brinn and Pendlebury

Author

Listed:
  • Doyle, J. R.
  • Arthurs, A. J.
  • Mcaulay, L.
  • Osborne, P. G.

Abstract

This note rehearses and develops the arguments of an earlier paper by Doyle and Arthurs [Omega, 23, 257-270 (1995)] in response to comments by Jones et al. [Omega 24, 597-602].

Suggested Citation

  • Doyle, J. R. & Arthurs, A. J. & Mcaulay, L. & Osborne, P. G., 1996. "Citation as effortful voting: A reply to ones, Brinn and Pendlebury," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 603-606, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:24:y:1996:i:5:p:603-606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(96)00037-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones, M. J. & Brinn, T. & Pendlebury, M., 1996. "Judging the quality of research in business schools: A comment from accounting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 597-602, October.
    2. Doyle, J. R. & Arthurs, A. J. & Green, R. H. & McAulay, L. & Pitt, M. R. & Bottomley, P. A. & Evans, W., 1996. "The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of the judged as judge: Analyses of the UK 1992 research assessment exercise data for business and management studies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 13-28, February.
    3. Doyle, J. R. & Arthurs, A. J., 1995. "Judging the quality of research in business schools: The UK as a case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 257-270, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ormerod, R. J., 1997. "An observation on publication habits based on the analysis of MS/OR journals," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 599-603, October.
    2. Jones, Michael John, 1999. "Critically evaluating an applications vs theory framework for research quality," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 397-401, June.
    3. Mitchell, George, 1996. "Judging research quality and journals: A call for debate," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 613-613, October.
    4. Holsapple, Clyde W. & Lee-Post, Anita, 2010. "Behavior-based analysis of knowledge dissemination channels in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 167-178, June.
    5. Ormerod, R. J., 2000. "Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 241-245, April.
    6. Jones, M. J. & Brinn, T. & Pendlebury, M., 1996. "Journal evaluation methodologies: A balanced response," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 607-612, October.
    7. Brinn, Tony & Jones, Michael John & Pendlebury, Maurice, 2000. "Measuring research quality: peer review 1, citation indices 0," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 237-239, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mitchell, George, 1996. "Judging research quality and journals: A call for debate," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 613-613, October.
    2. Donohue, Joan M. & Fox, Jeremy B., 2000. "A multi-method evaluation of journals in the decision and management sciences by US academics," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 17-36, February.
    3. Doyle, John R & Arthurs, Alan J, 1998. "Grade inflation in the UK's 1996 research assessment exercise?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 461-465, August.
    4. Doyle, John R., 1999. "Evaluating OR/MS research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 403-405, June.
    5. J Mingers, 2008. "Exploring the dynamics of journal citations: Modelling with s-curves," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(8), pages 1013-1025, August.
    6. Jones, M. J. & Brinn, T. & Pendlebury, M., 1996. "Journal evaluation methodologies: A balanced response," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 607-612, October.
    7. Ormerod, R. J., 1997. "An observation on publication habits based on the analysis of MS/OR journals," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 599-603, October.
    8. Jones, Michael John, 1999. "Critically evaluating an applications vs theory framework for research quality," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 397-401, June.
    9. Jones, M. J. & Brinn, T. & Pendlebury, M., 1996. "Judging the quality of research in business schools: A comment from accounting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 597-602, October.
    10. Holsapple, Clyde W. & Lee-Post, Anita, 2010. "Behavior-based analysis of knowledge dissemination channels in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 167-178, June.
    11. Hussain, Simon, 2010. "Accounting journals and the ABS quality ratings," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16.
    12. Ormerod, R. J., 2000. "Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 241-245, April.
    13. Thanassoulis, E. & Sotiros, D. & Koronakos, G. & Despotis, D., 2018. "Assessing the cost-effectiveness of university academic recruitment and promotion policies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 742-755.
    14. Tharapos, Meredith & Marriott, Neil, 2020. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Research quality in accounting education," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    15. Doyle, J. R. & Arthurs, A. J. & Green, R. H. & McAulay, L. & Pitt, M. R. & Bottomley, P. A. & Evans, W., 1996. "The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of the judged as judge: Analyses of the UK 1992 research assessment exercise data for business and management studies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 13-28, February.
    16. Fang Xu & Wenbin Liu & Ronald Rousseau, 2015. "Introducing sub-impact factor (SIF-) sequences and an aggregated SIF-indicator for journal ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1577-1593, February.
    17. Rosenstreich, Daniela & Wooliscroft, Ben, 2009. "Measuring the impact of accounting journals using Google Scholar and the g-index," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 227-239.
    18. Ziqiang Zeng & Lantian Shi, 2021. "A two-dimensional journal classification method based on output and input factors: perspectives from citation and authorship related indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3929-3964, May.
    19. Timothy Clark & Steven W. Floyd & Mike Wright, 2013. "In Search of the Impactful and the Interesting: Swings of the Pendulum?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1358-1373, December.
    20. Kym Fraser & Benedict Sheehy, 2020. "Abundant Publications but Minuscule Impact: The Irrelevance of Academic Accounting Research on Practice and the Profession," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-36, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:24:y:1996:i:5:p:603-606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.