The use and valuation of journals in planning scholarship: Peer assessment versus impact factors

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 66-75

  Goldstein, Harvey ^a   Maier, Gunther ^b  

^a MODUL UNIVERSITY VIENNA   (Austria)

^b VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

Author keywords

journal impact factors; planning journals; planning scholarship

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956792211     PISSN: 0739456X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X10375944     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Australian Research Council. 2008. ERA indicator descriptions. Commonwealth of Australia. www.arc.gov.au/pdf/ERA_Indicator_Descriptors.pdf.
2. Bell, G. 1977. Periodical literature on human settlements; evaluation and recommendations. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 43 (2): 178-81.
3. Cameron, B.D. 2005. Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications, portal. Libraries and the Academy 5:105-25.
4. Diamond, P.A., and J.A. Hausman. 1994. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4): 45-65.
5. Garfield, E. 1972. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178: 471-79.
6. Goldstein, H., and J. Carmin. 2007. Compact, diffuse, or would-be discipline? Assessing cohesion in planning scholarship, 1963-2002. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26:66-79.
7. Gordon, M.D. 1982. Citation ranking versus subjective evaluation in the determination of journal hierarchies in the social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 33 (1): 55-57.
8. Hecht, F., B.K. Hecht, and A.A. Sandberg. 1998. The journal impact factor: A misnamed, mislead, misused measure. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics 104:77-81.
9. MacRoberts, M.H., and B.R. MacRoberts. 1989. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences 40:342-49.
10. Maier, G. 2006. Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals. Scientometrics 69 (3): 651-67.
11. Maier, G. 2007. What do we think are the most important journals in regional science? Science Regionali, Italian Journal of Regional Science 6 (1): 5-34.
12. McAllister, P.R., R.C. Anderson, and F. Narin. 1980. Comparison of peer and citation assessment of the influence of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 31 (3): 147-52.
13. Monastersky, R. 2005. The number that is devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 14, pp. A12-A17.
14. Myers, D., and T. Banerjee. 2005. Toward greater heights for planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (2): 121-29.
15. Portney, P.R. 1994. The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4): 3-18.
16. Seglen, P.O. 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314:498-502.
17. Stevens, G. 1990. An alliance confirmed: Planning literature and the social sciences. Journal of the American Planning Association 56 (3): 341-49.
18. Stiftel, B., and C. Mukhopadhyay. 2007. Thoughts on Anglo-American hegemony in planning scholarship: Do we read each other's work? Town Planning Review 78 (5): 545-72.
19. Toulmin, S. 1972. Human understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Information for authors. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/Guidelines/Authors.pdf.
21. van Raan, A.F.J. 2005. Fatal attraction; conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 62:133-43.
22. Webster, C. 2006. Ranking planning journals. Environment and Planning B 33:485-90.