Journal Affiliation Research Articles

Ranking philosophy journals: a meta-ranking and a new survey ranking

This paper presents a meta-ranking of philosophy journals based on existing rankings, and a new ranking of philosophy journals developed through a survey involving a thousand authors (351 respondents, data collection May 2022) of articles from the most recent issues of 40 general philosophy journals. In addition to assessing journal quality, data were gathered on various variables such as gender, age, years in academia, number of refereed publications, area of specialization, and journal affiliation (as an author or editor). Findings indicate that only area of specialization and affiliation have some influence on respondents’ assessments. Authors affiliated with particular journals rate them higher than non-affiliated authors. The paper discusses criticisms of both citation-based and survey-based journal rankings, and offers words of caution regarding the practical use of rankings.

An analysis of 32 orthopaedic society costs and benefits

Background: Many orthopaedic surgeons belong to specialty groups or societies at the local, state, and national levels. We sought to understand costs and benefits of orthopaedic society memberships. Methods: We collected data on the cost of membership and benefits for 32 different orthopaedic societies in 2020 and 2021 by using website information and contacting the society’s administration. We grouped benefits into distinct categories: annual conference, continuing education, educational resources, leadership opportunities, career job listings, research grants, mentorship program, resident/fellow resources, medical student resources, and journal affiliation. Results: On average, attending surgeons pay $460 and residents/fellows pay $300 for a single annual membership. However, some organizations, such as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), the American Orthopaedic Association (AOA), and the Hip Society have higher annual dues ($1,115, $1,100, and $1,500, respectfully). Over 20 years, a physician belonging to both the AOA and the AAOS pay $44,300 in fees at the current cost. All 32 societies offer an annual conference, continuing education credit opportunities, other educational resources, leadership opportunities, and journal affiliations. Conclusions: Membership fees vary and benefits are often difficult to assess without becoming a member. The COVID-19 pandemic has moved society activities online, decreasing opportunities for in-person networking and education, with some societies considering reduced fees. The pandemic has also strained hospital budgets resulting in loss of funds for many physicians at academic organizations that would normally be used toward membership fees. Perhaps increased opportunities for resource pooling, with group access to educational opportunities and mentorship, should be considered. Level of Evidence: Level V.

The cost of publishing in an indexed ophthalmology journal in 2019

ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of indexed ophthalmology journals with article processing charges (APCs) and potential factors associated with APCs. DesignCross-sectional study. ParticipantsWeb of Science–indexed Ophthalmology journals in 2019. MethodsIndexed ophthalmology journal web sites were reviewed to obtain information on APCs, impact factor (IF), publication mode, publisher type, journal affiliation, waiver discount, and continent of origin. For data unavailable on the web site, the journal was contacted. Journal publication mode was categorized into subscription, fully open access, and hybrid (open access and subscription combined). Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between APCs and the above variables. Main Outcome MeasureProportion of ophthalmology journals with APCs. Results59 indexed ophthalmology journals were identified; 3 (5.1%) subscription only, 10 (16.9%) open access, and 46 (78.0%) hybrid. Overall 52/59 (88.1%) journals had APCs; 10 of 59 journals (16.9%) required APCs for publication (7 fully open access and 3 hybrid journals), whereas 42/59 (71.2%, all hybrid journals) had optional APCs for open access. The 7/59 journals (11.9%) without APCs included 100% (3/3) of the subscription-only journals, 30% (3/10) of the open access, and 2% (1/46) of the hybrid journals. The mean cost for journals with APCs was US$2854 ± 708.9 (range US$490–5000). Higher IF, publication mode, and commercial publishers were associated with higher APCs. Conclusions16.9% of indexed ophthalmology journals in 2019 required APCs, and additional 71.2% hybrid journals had APCs for the option of open access. Independent predictors of APCs were IF and publication mode.

Trends in Top Journals in Criminology and Criminal Justice

How has publishing in the field of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) changed over the last thirty years? Using a dataset combining information on all articles published in the “Big 5” CCJ journals from 1985 to 2017 with their Google Scholar Citations, we identify several key trends. There was an observable positive trend in the number of articles published per year since 1985. Similarly, the average page length and the total number of co-authors has increased over time. Older articles were cited more often than newer articles. This is expected, though notable peaks were observed for articles in Criminology (CRIM) and the Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency (JRCD). Poisson regression results indicate page length, the number of co-authors, and journal affiliation were significant predictors of the number of Google Scholar Citations. The five articles with the largest number of citations for each journal are featured.

American Society for Enhanced Recovery: Advancing Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Medicine.

As the population ages, the increasing surgical volume and complexity of care are expected to place additional care delivery burdens in the perioperative setting. In this age of integrated multidisciplinary care of the surgical patients, there is increasing recognition that an evidence-based perioperative pathway is associated with the optimal outcomes. These pathways, collectively referred to as Enhanced Recovery Pathways, have resulted in shortened length of hospital stay, reduced complications, and variance in outcomes, as well as earlier return to baseline activities. The American Society for Enhanced Recovery (ASER) is a multispecialty, nonprofit international organization, dedicated to the practice of enhanced recovery in perioperative patients through education and research. Perioperative Quality Initiatives were formed whose intent is to organize a series of consensus conferences on topics of interest related to perioperative medicine. The journal affiliation between American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Anesthesia & Analgesia will enable these evidence-based practices to be disseminated widely and swiftly to the practicing perioperative health care professionals so they can be adopted to improve the quality of perioperative surgical care.

Academic in-group bias: An empirical examination of the link between author and journal affiliation

Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality.

Academic In-Group Bias: An Empirical Examination of the Link between Author and Journal Affiliation

Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 1995-2010. We use a difference-in-differences methodology to compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 9 to 19 fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality, as measured by citations.

Ethical Management of Conflict of Interest: Proposed Standards for Academic Surgical Societies

A significant increase in industry support of professional medical associations coupled with data suggesting that gifts from industry have significant clinical influence have prompted calls from the Institute of Medicine and physician leaders to identify and manage conflicts of interest that stem from financial support of professional medical associations by industry. A joint task force of members appointed by the Association for Academic Surgery and the Society of University Surgeons was convened in July 2009. Recommendations were developed regarding management of all potential conflicts of interest that can arise within the context of an academic surgical society, with specific focus on relationships with industry. Task force members reached consensus around each recommendation and the guidelines were subsequently adopted by the Executive Councils of both societies. The committee identified 4 primary areas of need for transparent and definitive management of conflict of interest: 1) individual society activities, including general budget support, society endorsements, and journal affiliation; 2) individual personnel conflicts such as society leadership and standards for disclosure of conflict; 3) meeting activities including budgetary support, program committee associations, and abstract review process; and 4) foundation support and research and travel awards. The resulting guidelines aim to protect the societies and their membership from undue bias that may undermine the credibility and mission of these associations. Policy guidelines to mitigate conflict of interest are necessary to protect the integrity of the work of academic surgical societies and their fiduciary duty to members and patients. Guidelines created and adopted by the Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons form an effective model for academic surgical societies and their members.

ADAA, journal affiliation, and the peer-review process

Depression and AnxietyVolume 24, Issue 1 p. v-vi EditorialFree Access ADAA, journal affiliation, and the peer-review process Thomas W. Uhde M.D., Thomas W. Uhde M.D.Search for more papers by this author Thomas W. Uhde M.D., Thomas W. Uhde M.D.Search for more papers by this author First published: 05 February 2007 https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20296AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume24, Issue12007Pages v-vi RelatedInformation

Faculty Perceptions and Readership Patterns of Finance Journals: A Global View

AbstractJournal rankings are frequently used as a measure of both journal and author research quality. Nonetheless, debates frequently arise because journal rankings do not take into account the underlying diversity of the finance research community. This study examines how factors such as a researcher's geographic origin, research interests, seniority, and journal affiliation influence journal quality perceptions and readership patterns. Based on a worldwide sample of 862 finance academics, we find remarkable consistency in the rankings of top journals. For the remaining journals, perception of journal quality differs depending on the researcher's geographic origin, research interests, seniority, and journal affiliation.

Diversity in Economics: An Analysis of Journal Quality Perceptions

It is still debatable whether scientific diversity is a virtue or a disadvantage for the development of a discipline. Nonetheless, diversity among scientists with respect to their journal quality perceptions plays an important role in hiring and promotion decisions. In this article we examine the degree of diversity within economics based on the journal quality perceptions of 2,103 AEA economists worldwide. Specifically, we empirically test for factors that might explain differences in an economist's journal quality perceptions. These factors include an economist's geographic origin, school of thought, journal affiliation, field of specialization and research orientation. Indeed, we find that a significant degree of diversity in journal quality perceptions exists between economists that belong in different subgroups. These results might explain the frequent debates in tenure and promotion committees where journal standings are used for the evaluation of a researcher's output.

Faculty Perceptions and Readership Patterns of Finance Journals: A Global View

With an increased pressure to publish in internationally highly regarded journals, faculty evaluations frequently depend on journal rankings. Nonetheless, debates about journal rankings frequently arise since they do not take into account the underlying diversity of the finance research community. Therefore this study examines how contextual factors such as a researcher's geographical origin, research interests, seniority and journal affiliation may influence their journal quality perceptions and readership patterns. Our analysis is based on a worldwide sample of 862 finance academics where the perceived journal quality is measured across a number of dimensions, including journal familiarity, average rank position, percent of respondents who classify a journal as top tier, and readership. The results support that while there is remarkable consistency in identifying the top journals, for the remaining journals a significant variation on journal quality perceptions exists based on a researcher's geographic origin, research interests, seniority and journal affiliation.

Diversity in Economics: An Analysis of Journal Quality Perceptions

It is still debatable whether scientific diversity is a virtue or a disadvantage for the development of a discipline. Nonetheless, diversity among scientists with respect to their journal quality perceptions plays an important role in hiring and promotion decisions. In the present paper we examine the degree of diversity within economics based on the journal quality perceptions of 2,103 AEA economists worldwide. Specifically, we empirically test for factors that might explain differences in an economist's journal quality perceptions. These factors include an economist's geographic origin, school of thought, journal affiliation, field of specialization and research orientation. Indeed, we find that a significant degree of diversity in journal quality perceptions exists between economists that belong in different subgroups. These results might explain the frequent debates in tenure and promotion committees where journal standing are used for the evaluation of a researcher's output.

Faculty Perceptions and Readership Patterns of Accounting Journals: A Global View

The increased emphasis on the publication requirements for accounting academics in recent years has made the quality of academic journals a frequently debated issue. Perhaps many of the debates that arise between academic researchers on the issue of journal quality may be due to differences in perspective. Given that one's perspective may depend on a number of factors such as their geographic location, research interests, or academic rank, this study examines how such factors effect journal perceptions among accounting faculty. Based on an online survey, we examine the journal quality perceptions and readership patterns of a worldwide sample of 1,231 accounting academics. The perceived quality of journals is measured across a number of dimensions including journal popularity, average rank position, percent of respondents who classify a journal as top tier, and readership. In addition to providing alternative measures of journal quality across a large worldwide sample, this study contributes by demonstrating that significant variations exist in the ranking and readership of journals, depending on the respondents' geographic origin, research interests, seniority and journal affiliation.

Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A Worldwide Perspective

The practice of evaluating faculty and business schools based on their journal publications has increased the emphasis on research output in peer reviewed journals. Since journal standings are a frequently debated issue, this study seeks to examine the perceptual differences of journals between different segments of marketing academics. Based on a worldwide online survey, journals are assessed in terms of four subjective quality metrics: journal familiarity, average rank position, percent of respondents who classify a journal as top tier, and readership. It is demonstrated that an individual's geographic origin, research interests or journal affiliation can have a significant impact on journal rankings.

Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors

Journal editors who publish papers authored by colleagues and former graduate students have been charged with practicing favoritism, with the implication that the papers in question are of lower quality than those written by scholars with no ties to the editor. Using citation analysis, the authors find strong evidence that although journal editors occasionally publish subpar papers authored by colleagues and former graduate students, on balance their use of professional connections enables them to identify and 'capture' high-impact papers for publication. This implies that a practice interpreted as favoritism by many scholars in fact serves to enhance efficiency in the market for scientific knowledge. Copyright 1994 by University of Chicago Press.

1979: Affiliation with the Paediatric Research Society of Australia and a Change in Format

During 1978 the Australian College of Paediatrics and the Paediatric Research Society of Australia agreed that the Australian Paediatric Journal would now represent both associations. The Paediatric Research Society, which was established in 1966, is now a vigorous group of about 150 scientists and doctors actively involved in paediatric research in Australia.We welcome this increase in the Journal's affiliation and trust that with it will come an increasing number of papers reporting the wide range of research interests of the Society's members.This first issue of 1979 is printed on a larger page size. The decision to change page size was made on grounds of economy, both to suit our clients who support the Journal with advertisements and to help contain the increasing costs of printing. We hope the change in format will be welcomed by our readers.

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY AND EDITOR TO THE COMMITTEE OF SEVEN AND THE COMMITTEE ON JOURNAL

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY AND EDITOR TO THE COMMITTEE OF SEVEN AND THE COMMITTEE ON JOURNAL Affiliation Selskar M. Gunn, Editor, Secretary CopyRight https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.5.8.755 Published Online: August 30, 2011