Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:20:55.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Journal Publication Performance of Economic History Programs: 1960–1969 and 1970–1974

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Albert W. Niemi Jr
Albert W. Niemi Jr
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper reviews the output of journal publications by the twenty five leading economic history programs during the past fifteen years. At present, there are no formal ratings of the quality of economic history programs at the various academic institutions, but journal publications can serve as a partial indicator of quality. The Roose-Andersen ratings graduate programs provide separate rankings of economics and history programs, but this information may not be appropriate in evaluating economic history programs, and the ratings have not been updated since 1969. Journal publications are certainly not the only measure of quality academic institutions, but journals are regarded as the standard outlet for disseminating new research findings and expanding the frontiers of knowledge. Those institutions that have concentrated their publication efforts on books, textbooks, monographs, working papers, and other nonjournal forms of publication will of course be underrepresented by the procedures followed in this paper.

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , September 1975 , pp. 635 - 641
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Journal publication performance has been used in several other studies to rate the quality of economics programs. See the following: Hogan, Timothy D., “Rankings Ph.D. Programs in Economics and the Relative Publishing Performance of Their Ph.D.'s: The Experience of the 1960's,” Western Economic Journal, XI (December 1973), 429–450Google Scholar; Moore, William J., “The Relative Quality of Graduate Programs in Economics, 1958–1972: Who Published and Who Perished,” Western Economic Journal, XI (March 1973), 1–23Google Scholar; and Siegfried, John J., “The Publishing of Economics Papers and Its Impact on Graduate Faculty Ratings, 1960–1969”, Journal Economic Literature, X (March 1972), 31–49.Google Scholar

2 See Roose, Kenneth D. and Andersen, Charles J., A Rating of Graduate Programs (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970)Google Scholar. In my recent article, “Journal Publication Performance During 1970–1974: The Relative Output of Southem Economics Departments,” Southern Economic Journal (July 1975), I found a significant difference between the Roose-Andersen ratings of economics departments and the publication output of departments.

3 It should be pointed out that the methods used in the paper measure only the quantity of journal publications. There may be large differences in the quality of journal articles, but the methods used here do not reflect quality variation.

4 Hogan, Moore, and Siegfried acknowledged the problems inherent in using a single measure such as journal publications; however, they defended journal publication as an appropriate index of publication performance.

5 No attempt was made to adjust the estimates of publication performance by department size. It would be difficult to determine the number of economic historians at each institution, and it appears that the quality of an economic history program is better reflected by total publication output than by per capita performance. If all individuals worked at the same pace, a per capita measure would not distinguish between programs with one productive member and programs with many productive members. In cases of joint authorship by individuals at different institutions, each institution was awarded full publication credit.

6 Three recent surveys of economics journals suggest that these are the four leading economic history journals. Hawkins, Robert G., Ritter, Lawrence S., and Walter, Ingo, “What Economists Think of Their Journals,” Journal of Political Economy, LXXXI (July-August 1973), 1017–1032Google Scholar, only included the JEH as a top rated economic history journal. Moore, William J., “The Relative Quality of Economics Journals: A Suggested Rating System,” Western Economic Journal, X (June 1972), 156–169Google Scholar, provided the following ranking: EHR, 20; JEH, 21; EEH, 33; and BHR, 36. Billings, Bradley B. and Viksnins, George G., “The Relative Quality of Economics Journals: An Alternative Rating System,” Western Economic Journal, X (December 1972), 467–469Google Scholar, provided the following ranking: JEH, 25.5; EHR, 36.5; BHR, 43; and EEH, 43.

7 The technique of converting all journals to a common page volume was suggested by Siegfried.

8 It is interesting to note that in the Variant 1 calculation Harvard published 885.6 pages, including 487.0 pages in the BHR.

9 In the Variant 2 calculations, articles in the JEH = 4; communications in the JEH and articles in the EHR, EEH, and BHR = 2; and communications in the EHR, EEH, and BHR = 1.

10 Washington (253.0 pages) and Wisconsin (248.3 pages) led all schools in the JEH during the 1970's; Harvard (154.1 pages) led in the BHR; Wisconsin (128.1 pages) led in EEH; and Washington (50.0 pages) led in the EHR.

11 The sharp decline of Ohio State and Purdue in the Variant 2 calculations reflected their lack of publications in the JEH. During the period 1970–1974, Ohio State published 7.0 pages and Purdue did not publish in the JEH.