Rankings of academic publishers

Last updated

There are a number of approaches to ranking academic publishing groups and publishers. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Rankings rely on subjective impressions by the scholarly community, on analyses of prize winners of scientific associations, discipline, a publisher's reputation, and its impact factor (particularly in the sciences).

Contents

Ranking challenges

Publications are often judged by venue, rather than merit. [7] This has been criticized in the Leiden Manifesto [8] and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. According to the manifesto, "Science and technology indicators are prone to conceptual ambiguity and uncertainty and require strong assumptions that are not universally accepted. The meaning of citation counts, for example, has long been debated. Thus, best practice uses multiple indicators to provide a more robust and pluralistic picture." [8]

Moreover, studies of methodological quality and reliability have found that "reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank", [9] contrary to widespread expectations. [10]

In a study assessing an increasingly-diversified array of publishers and their service to the academic community, Janice S. Lewis concluded that college and university librarians ranked university presses higher and commercial publishers lower than did members of the American Political Science Association. [4]

According to Colin Steele, a librarian at the Australian National Library in Canberra, "Listings of publishers by title also fail to take into account that some university presses are strong in certain disciplines, but not across the whole spectrum." [11] Rankings can vary widely by discipline.

Australian Political Science rankings

The Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) ranked academic publishers in 2007, taking into consideration both book and journal publication. [12] By 2022 this was replaced by a ranking of journal titles only. [13]

In 2007, their top-ranked (A+) publishers were:

In 2007, their second-ranked (A) publishers were:

SENSE rankings

The Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE Research School) has ranked scientific publishers every year from 2006 until 2022. [14] This ranking was intended for internal use only and is not anymore available.

Spanish National Research Council rankings

In 2012 and 2014, the Spanish National Research Council asked 11,864 Spanish academics to name the 10 most prestigious academic publishers from over 600 international and 500 Spanish-language publishers. It received 2,731 responses, a response rate of 23.05 percent. Results were compiled using a weighted average. [15] The results were:

  1. Cambridge University Press
  2. Oxford University Press
  3. Springer Nature
  4. Routledge
  5. Elsevier
  6. Peter Lang
  7. Thomson Reuters
  8. Blackwell
  9. De Gruyter
  10. McGraw Hill [15]
  11. IGI Global

Granada rankings

To quantitatively assess the output of a publishing company, in 2014 a research group associated with the University of Granada created a methodology based on the Thomson-Reuters Book Citation Index. [16] The quantitative weight of the publishers is based on output data, impact (citations) and publisher profile. According to the Granada study, the 10 leading companies were: [16]

  1. Springer
  2. Palgrave Macmillan
  3. Routledge
  4. Cambridge University Press
  5. Elsevier
  6. Nova Science Publishers
  7. Edward Elgar
  8. Information Age Publishing
  9. Princeton University Press
  10. University of California Press
  11. IGI Global

Libcitation rankings

The Research Impact Measurement Service (RIMS) at the University of New South Wales presented a quantitative methodology of bibliometric comparisons of book publishers. [17] [18] [19] In a Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology article, Howard D. White et al. wrote: "Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology". The RIMS proposed what they called a "libcitation count", counting the libraries holding a given book as reported in a national (or international) union catalog. In the follow-up literature, comparing research units or even the output of publishing companies became the target of research. [17] [20] White et al. wrote,

Libcitation counts reflect judgments by librarians on the usefulness of publications for their various audiences of readers. The Libcitation measure thus resembles a citation impact measure in discriminating values of publications on a defined ground. It rewards authors whose books (or other publications) are seen by librarians as having relatively wide appeal. A book's absolute appeal can be determined simply by counting how many libraries hold it, but it can also be gauged in relation to other books in its subject class. [17]

Libcitations, according to the RIMS, reflect what librarians know about the prestige of publishers, the opinions of reviewers, and the reputations of authors. [17]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Goodson, Larry P.; Dillman, Bradford; Hira, Anil (1999). "Ranking the Presses: Political Scientists' Evaluations of Publisher Quality". PS: Political Science and Politics. 32 (2): 257–262. doi: 10.1017/S1049096500049416 . JSTOR   420561.
  2. ↑ Steele, Colin (2008). "Scholarly Monograph Publishing in the 21st Century: The Future More Than Ever Should be an Open Book". The Journal of Electronic Publishing. 11 (2). doi: 10.3998/3336451.0011.201 .
  3. ↑ Garand, James C.; Giles, Micheal W. (2011). "Ranking Scholarly Publishers in Political Science: An Alternative Approach". PS: Political Science and Politics. 44 (2): 375–383. doi: 10.1017/S1049096511000229 . JSTOR   41319924.
  4. 1 2 Lewis, Janice S. (2000). "An Assessment of Publisher Quality by Political Science Librarians". College & Research Libraries. 61 (4): 313–323. doi: 10.5860/crl.61.4.313 .
  5. ↑ Samuels, David (2013). "Book Citations Count". PS: Political Science & Politics. 46 (4): 785–790. doi: 10.1017/S1049096513001054 (inactive 29 January 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2025 (link)
  6. ↑ Rhodes, R. A. W.; Hamilton, Margaret (2007). "Australian Political Science: Journal and Publisher Rankings" (PDF).
  7. ↑ Lee, Icy (2014). "Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing". Language Teaching. 47 (2): 250–261. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000504. S2CID   146536290.
  8. 1 2 Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I (23 April 2015). "The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics" (PDF). Nature. 520 (7548): 429–431. doi: 10.1038/520429a . PMID   25903611. S2CID   4462115 . Retrieved 18 October 2017.
  9. ↑ Brembs, Björn (2018). "Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 12: 37. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037 . PMC   5826185 . PMID   29515380.
  10. ↑ Triggle, Chris R; MacDonald, Ross; Triggle, David J.; Grierson, Donald (3 April 2022). "Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges". Accountability in Research. 29 (3): 133–164. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481 . PMID   33787413. One might expect, therefore, that a high JIF factor indicates a higher standard of interest, accuracy and reliability of papers published therein. This is sometimes true but unfortunately is certainly not always the case (Brembs 2018, 2019). Thus, Björn Brembs (2019) concluded: "There is a growing body of evidence against our subjective notion of more prestigious journals publishing 'better' science. In fact, the most prestigious journals may be publishing the least reliable science."
  11. ↑ Steele, Colin (2008). "Scholarly Monograph Publishing in the 21st Century: The Future More Than Ever Should be an Open Book". The Journal of Electronic Publishing. 11 (2). doi: 10.3998/3336451.0011.201 .
  12. ↑ "Ranking List of Academic Book Publishers" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 October 2017.
  13. ↑ "APSA Preferred Journal List Review 2022". 10 October 2022.
  14. ↑ "SENSE – Quality & Criteria". www.sense.nl.
  15. 1 2 http://ilia.cchs.csic.es/SPI/metodologia_2014.html Archived 7 March 2022 at the Wayback Machine and http://ilia.cchs.csic.es/SPI/prestigio_expertos_2014.php Archived 23 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  16. 1 2 Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas; Miguel Campanario, Juan; Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio (2014). "Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the Book Citation Index". Online Information Review. 38: 24–42. arXiv: 1312.2791 . doi:10.1108/OIR-10-2012-0169. S2CID   3794376.
  17. 1 2 3 4 White, Howard D.; Boell, Sebastian K.; Yu, Hairong; Davis, Mari; Wilson, Concepción S.; Cole, Fletcher T.H. (2009). "Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60 (6): 1083–1096. doi:10.1002/asi.21045. hdl: 1959.4/44715 . S2CID   33661687.
  18. ↑ Drummond, Robyn; Wartho, Richard (2009). "RIMS: The Research Impact Measurement Service at the University of New South Wales". Australian Academic & Research Libraries. 40 (2): 76–87. doi:10.1080/00048623.2009.10721387.
  19. ↑ For a recent summary of the literature see Tausch, Arno (2017), Die Buchpublikationen der Nobelpreis-Ökonomen und die führenden Buchverlage der Disziplin. Eine bibliometrische Analyse Bibliotheksdienst, March 2017: 339 – 374. SSRN   2674502
  20. ↑
    • Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2014). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.