Journal ratings can reflect the quality of a journal and serve as a crucial reference for evaluating scientific research outcomes. To integrate the preferences of journal rating lists proposed by different institutions, some journal evaluation integration methods have been proposed, with the Weighted Average Percentage (WAP) method being a typical representative. However, the WAP method ignores the level interval information in the rating. To address this issue, we propose the Weighted Average Interval Percentile (WAIP) method. This approach introduces information about journal grade intervals and classifies journals by integrating evaluation rules based on upper and lower bounds. In an empirical study of four well-known journals in the field of economic management, the WAIP method demonstrates its effectiveness and wide applicability, enabling more accurate and stable integration of multiple journal ranking lists. This method aims to provide a more objective perspective for journal ratings, thereby enhancing the fairness and efficiency of the evaluation process.
BeetsSDLewisBRBrowerHH.The quality of business ethics journals: an assessment based on application. Bus Soc2016; 55: 188–213.
2.
MingersJYangL.Evaluating journal quality: a review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management. Eur J Oper Res2017; 257: 323–337.
3.
WuDWuHLiJ.Citation advantage of positive words: predictability, temporal evolution, and universality in varied quality journals. Scientometrics2024; 129: 4275–4293.
4.
StewardMDLewisBR.A comprehensive analysis of marketing journal rankings. J Mark Educ2010; 32: 75–92.
5.
VidgenRMortensonMPowellP.Invited viewpoint: how well does the information systems discipline fare in the financial times’ top 50 journal list?J Strateg Inf Syst2019; 28: 101577.
6.
WalkerKBFleischmanGMStephensonT.The incidence of documented standards for research in departments of accounting at US institutions. J Account Educ2010; 28: 43–57.
7.
BeanDFBernardiRA. Estimating the ratings of journals omitted in prior quality ratings. In: SchwartzWNKetzJE (eds) Advances in Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations, Vol 7. Stamford: Jai Press Inc, pp. 109–127.
8.
LowryPBMoodyGDGaskinJ, et al. Evaluating journal quality and the association for information systems senior scholars’ journal basket via bibliometric measures: do expert journal assessments add value?MIS Quart2013; 37: 993–1012.
9.
BarmanSTersineRJBuckleyMR.An empirical assessment of the perceived relevance and quality of POM-related journals by academicians. J Oper Manag1991; 10: 194–212.
10.
CurrieRRPandherGS.Finance journal rankings: active scholar assessment revisited. J Bank Finance2020; 111: 105717.
11.
HerrmannRBergEDabbertS, et al. Going beyond impact factors: a survey-based journal ranking by agricultural economists. J Agric Econ2011; 62: 710–732.
12.
PetersKDanielsKHodgkinsonGP, et al. Experts’ judgments of management journal quality: an identity concerns model. J Manag2014; 40: 1785–1812.
13.
SaladinB.Operations management research: where should we publish. Oper Manag Rev1985; 3: 3–9.
14.
FakruddinM.Journal impact factor- applicability and alternative indices. COLLNET J Scientometr Inf Manag2014; 8: 457–464.
15.
WuDAoWMinY, et al. Normalising the H-index: the equal quantity H-index for journals. Scientometrics. Epub ahead of print 14March2025. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05252-y.
16.
JamesCColledgeLMeesterW, et al. CiteScore metrics: creating journal metrics from the Scopus citation index. Learn Publ2019; 32: 367–374.
17.
DocampoDSafónV.Journal ratings: a paper affiliation methodology. Scientometrics2021; 126: 8063–8090.
18.
LarivièreVGingrasY.The impact factor’s Matthew effect: a natural experiment in bibliometrics. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2010; 61: 424–427.
19.
ZengZJiaCZhangW, et al. Assessing journals through a three-dimensional framework based on article citation, author and institution influence. J Inf Sci2024; 50: 786–807.
20.
WuDWangSXuW, et al. Do conference-journal articles receive more citations? A case study in physics. J Informetr2024; 18: 101590.
21.
GirolamoTMCastroNFanninDK, et al. Inequity in peer review in communication sciences and disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol2022; 31: 1898–1912.
22.
Politzer-AhlesSGirolamoTGhaliS.Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing. J Engl Acad Purp2020; 47: 100895.
23.
UzunerS.Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: a literature review. J Engl Acad Purp2008; 7: 250–263.
24.
CookWDRavivTRichardsonAJ.Aggregating incomplete lists of journal rankings: an application to academic accounting journals*. Account Perspect2010; 9: 217–235.
25.
SubochevAAleskerovFPislyakovV.Ranking journals using social choice theory methods: a novel approach in bibliometrics. J Informetr2018; 12: 416–429.
26.
TheuβlSReuttererTHornikK.How to derive consensus among various marketing journal rankings?J Bus Res2014; 67: 998–1006.
27.
XiaoYDengH-ZLuX, et al. Graph-based rank aggregation method for high-dimensional and partial rankings. J Oper Res Soc2021; 72: 227–236.
28.
TempletonGFLewisBR.Fairness in the institutional valuation of business journals. MIS Quart2015; 39: 523–539.
29.
YuanLLiJLiR, et al. Mapping the evaluation results between quantitative metrics and meta-synthesis from experts’ judgements: evidence from the supply chain management and logistics journals ranking. Soft Comput2020; 24: 6227–6243.
30.
NordJHNordGD.MIS research: journal status assessment and analysis. Inf Manage1995; 29: 29–42.
31.
SerenkoADohanM.Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: example from the field of Artificial Intelligence. J Informetr2011; 5: 629–648.
32.
BeetsSDKeltonASLewisBR.An assessment of accounting journal quality based on departmental lists. Scientometrics2015; 102: 315–332.
33.
WuDLiMZhuX, et al. Ranking the research productivity of business and management institutions in Asia–Pacific region: empirical research in leading ABS journals. Scientometrics2015; 105: 1253–1272.
34.
MoussaSTouzaniM.Ranking marketing journals using the Google Scholar-based hg-index. J Informetr2010; 4: 107–117.
35.
MorrisHHarveyCKellyA.Journal rankings and the ABS journal quality guide. Manag Decis2009; 47: 1441–1451.
36.
KruegerTM.A Comparison of CABS’ academic journal guide, Australian business deans council’s list, and Cabell’s directory of publishing opportunities in finance. J Financ Educ2017; 43: 313–338.
37.
ZhangT.Grading business journals: a comparative analysis of ABS, ABDC and JCR quartiles and proposing an algorithm based classification. J Scientometr Res2022; 10: 297–303.
38.
SchraderUHennig-ThurauT.VHB-JOURQUAL2: method, results, and implications of the German academic association for business research’s journal ranking. Bus Res2009; 2: 180–204.
39.
AbramoGD’AngeloCA.Refrain from adopting the combination of citation and journal metrics to grade publications, as used in the Italian national research assessment exercise (VQR 2011–2014). Scientometrics2016; 109: 2053–2065.
40.
VanclayJK.An evaluation of the Australian research council’s journal ranking. J Informetr2011; 5: 265–274.
41.
MoosaIA.A critique of the bucket classification of journals: the ABDC list as an example. Econ Rec2016; 92: 448–463.
42.
AbrizahANoorhidawatiAZainabAN.LIS journals categorization in the journal citation report: a stated preference study. Scientometrics2015; 102: 1083–1099.
43.
HirshmanBJonesLTangJ, et al. ‘Journal Bias’ in neuro-oncology: an analysis of the surgical high grade glioma literature. Neuro-oncol2016; 18: 199–199.
44.
TsaiC-FHuY-HGeorge KeS-W. A Borda count approach to combine subjective and objective based MIS journal rankings. Online Inf Rev2014; 38: 469–483.
45.
DworkCKumarRNaorM, et al. Rank aggregation methods for the Web. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 613–622. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
46.
JoodakiMDowlatshahiMBJoodakiNZ.An ensemble feature selection algorithm based on PageRank centrality and fuzzy logic. Knowl-based Syst2021; 233: 107538.
47.
KeyhanipourAH.Graph-based rank aggregation: a deep-learning approach. Int J Web Inf Syst2024; 21: 54–76.
48.
MoedHF.Comprehensive indicator comparisons intelligible to non-experts: the case of two SNIP versions. Scientometrics2016; 106: 51–65.
KaoEHHsuC-HLuY, et al. Ranking of finance journals: a stochastic dominance analysis. Manag Finance2016; 42: 312–323.
51.
BryceCDowlingMLuceyB.The journal quality perception gap. Res Policy2020; 49: 103957.
52.
LiJLuXLiJ, et al. Evaluating journal quality by integrating department journal lists in a developing country: are they representative?J Acad Librariansh2019; 45: 102067.
53.
AsubiaroT.How collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa: a bibliometric study of LIS research from 1996 to 2015. Scientometrics2019; 120: 1261–1287.
54.
WienCDorchBFLarsenAV.Contradicting incentives for research collaboration. Scientometrics2017; 112: 903–915.
