Russian Economic Journal Consensus Ranking: Ideology and Experience of Making Up

Abstract

The article reveals the ideology and algorithm of building a Russian economic journal consensus ranking, which combines the Muraviev’s, Sterligov’s, Balatsky-Ekimova’s and Rubinstein’s rankings of Russian economic journal. Currently they are the most popular private rankings. They use both an expert and bibliometric data and the hybrid procedures for ranking journals. The combination of these ranking products is analogous to the law of large numbers and gives a more balanced and objective assessment of domestic economic journals. An overview of the attempts to construct a similar aggregate journal ranking by Western experts is given in this article. That proves the validity of such author's initiative in relation to Russia. Procedures for translating qualitative assessments of journals into digital equivalent and back were used in the construction of the consensual ranking. The ranking allowed to select the best Russian economic journals and to form the so-called Diamond List, which includes 13 of the best periodicals in the economy. Analysis of the consensus ranking revealed a number of features. So, it shown that consensus is observed only for a strictly limited number of journals – 13–15 and then the consistency of expert assessments starts to diverge. Also weak elements were identified in the composition of the Diamond List. The practical significance of the rating and the possibility of its further use were also discussed in this article. Views: 166

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.