Various journal-ranking algorithms have been proposed, most of them based on citation counts. This article introduces a new approach based on the reciprocal direct influence of all pairs of a list of journals. The proposed method is assessed against an opinion-based ranking published in 2005 for 25 operations research and management science (OR/MS) journals, and five existing approaches based o...

   Recently, Farzipoor Saen [Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(11), 1575–1582 (2009)] proposed a method based on data envelopment analysis to identify optimistic efficient suppliers in the presence of nondiscretionary factors-imprecise data. This short communication aims at showing a computational error in computing the value of preference intensity parameter in Farzipoor Saen’s [...

Publication patterns of 79 forest 2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the ‘Excellence Research for Australia’ (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade following their first major award. substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and ...

An expert ranking of forestry journals was compared with journal impact factors and h-indices computed from the ISI Web of Science and internet-based data. Citations reported by Google Scholar offer an efficient way to rank all journals objectively, in a manner consistent with other indicators. This h-index exhibited a high correlation with the journal impact factor (r=0.92), but is not confine...

BACKGROUND Thomson Institute for Scientific Information's journal impact factor, the most common measure of journal status, is based on crude citation counts that do not account for the quality of the journals where the citations originate. This study examines how accounting for citation origin affects the impact factor ranking of dermatology journals. METHODS The 2003 impact factors of derma...