IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v108y2016i1d10.1007_s11192-016-1970-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An assessment of quality, trustworthiness and usability of Indonesian agricultural science journals: stated preference versus revealed preference study

Author

Listed:
  • Bambang Winarko

    (Indonesian Agency of Agricultural Research and Development)

  • A. Abrizah

    (University of Malaya)

  • Muzammil Tahira

    (University of Malaya)

Abstract

Scientific journals published in non-English languages may be less accessible to researchers worldwide. Most of them are not covered in international indexing and abstracting databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus, which can influence their impact. Scientific journals published by the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development are a case in point, and their impact cannot be ascertained due to the non-existence of a tool that can assist in assessing the performance of the journals. To address this concern, this study aims to (a) assess the quality of Indonesian agricultural science journals; (b) determine how Indonesia-based agricultural science researchers assign and calibrate trust to the journals they use; (c) determine how Indonesia-based agricultural science researchers assess the usability of the journals they read; and (d) produce an internal ranking of Indonesian agricultural journals. The study has been designed as a combination of two approaches, namely revealed preference and stated preference study. The revealed preference study involves citation analysis of the nine journals sampled. The stated preference study gauges the trustworthiness and usability of these journals from the perspectives of the researchers who use them. The revealed preference provides the Journal Quality Index whereas the stated preference study provides the Journal Trust and Journal Usability Index. The study also provides internal ranking and comparison between indicators resulted from the revealed preference and stated preference study. It is also observed that Quality and Trust indices are well correlated and indicate a good model fit with the Overall Index. On the other hand, Usability Index is negatively correlated and shows very less model fit with the Overall Index.

Suggested Citation

  • Bambang Winarko & A. Abrizah & Muzammil Tahira, 2016. "An assessment of quality, trustworthiness and usability of Indonesian agricultural science journals: stated preference versus revealed preference study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 289-304, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:108:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1970-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1970-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-1970-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-1970-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. A. Abrizah & A. Noorhidawati & A. N. Zainab, 2015. "LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: a stated preference study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1083-1099, February.
    2. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2010. "Rankings of information and library science journals by JIF and by h-type indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 141-147.
    3. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    4. Chan, Kam C. & Chang, Chih-Hsiang & Chang, Yuanchen, 2013. "Ranking of finance journals: Some Google Scholar citation perspectives," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 241-250.
    5. Tsai, Chih-Fong, 2014. "Citation impact analysis of top ranked computer science journals and their rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 318-328.
    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. Xiaolong Xue & Liang Wang & Rebecca J. Yang, 2018. "Exploring the science of resilience: critical review and bibliometric analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(1), pages 477-510, January.

    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. Claudio Vitari, 2014. "Electronic currencies for purposive degrowth?," Working paper serie RMT - Grenoble Ecole de Management hal-00975432, HAL.
    2. Ronald Rousseau, 2018. "The repeat rate: from Hirschman to Stirling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 645-653, July.
    3. Seongkyoon Jeong & Jong-Chan Kim & Jae Young Choi, 2015. "Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 841-871, September.
    4. Hackett, Edward J. & Leahey, Erin & Parker, John N. & Rafols, Ismael & Hampton, Stephanie E. & Corte, Ugo & Chavarro, Diego & Drake, John M. & Penders, Bart & Sheble, Laura & Vermeulen, Niki & Vision,, 2021. "Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    5. Andrew Seltzer & Martin Shanahan & Claire Wright, 2022. "The Rise and Fall and Rise (?) of Economic History in Australia," CEH Discussion Papers 05, Centre for Economic History, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    6. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    7. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Judit Bar-Ilan: information scientist, computer scientist, scientometrician," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1235-1244, December.
    8. Fagerberg, Jan & Landström, Hans & Martin, Ben R., 2012. "Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1121-1131.
    9. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    10. Ran Xu & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2018. "Neuroscience bridging scientific disciplines in health: Who builds the bridge, who pays for it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1183-1204, November.
    11. Nianhang Xu & Winnie P. H. Poon & Kam C. Chan, 2014. "Contributing Institutions and Authors in International Business Research: A Quality-Based Assessment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 735-755, October.
    12. Lina Xu & Steven Dellaportas & Zhiqiang Yang & Jin Wang, 2023. "More on the relationship between interdisciplinary accounting research and citation impact," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4779-4803, December.
    13. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    14. Froese, Anna & Woiwode, Hendrik & Suckow, Silvio, 2019. "Mission Impossible? Neue Wege zu Interdisziplinarität: Empfehlungen für Wissenschaft, Wissenschaftspolitik und Praxis," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2019-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    15. Dellaportas, Steven & Xu, Lina & Yang, Zhiqiang, 2022. "The level of cross-disciplinarity in cross-disciplinary accounting research: analysis and suggestions for improvement," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Reddy, Kotapati Srinivasa, 2015. "Extant Reviews on Entry-mode/Internationalization, Mergers & Acquisitions, and Diversification: Understanding Theories and Establishing Interdisciplinary Research," MPRA Paper 63744, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2015.
    17. Xie, Yundong & Wu, Qiang & Zhang, Peng & Li, Xingchen, 2020. "Information Science and Library Science (IS-LS) journal subject categorisation and comparison based on editorship information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    18. Georgios Stoupas & Antonis Sidiropoulos & Antonia Gogoglou & Dimitrios Katsaros & Yannis Manolopoulos, 2018. "Rainbow ranking: an adaptable, multidimensional ranking method for publication sets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 147-160, July.
    19. Judit Bar-Ilan & Mark Levene, 2015. "The hw-rank: an h-index variant for ranking web pages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2247-2253, March.
    20. Lorenzo Cassi & Wilfriedo Mescheba & Élisabeth Turckheim, 2014. "How to evaluate the degree of interdisciplinarity of an institution?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1871-1895, December.

    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:spr:scient:v:108:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1970-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.