Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business

Possibilities for ranking business schools and considerations concerning the stability of such rankings

In this article, we discuss possibilities for ranking business schools and analyse the stability of research rankings using different ranking methods. One focus is set on a comparison of publication-based rankings with citation-based rankings. Our considerations and discussions are based on a (small) case study for which we have examined all (six) business schools at public universities in Austria. The innovative aspect of our article is the chosen mix of methods and the explicit comparison of the results of a publication analysis with those of a citation analysis. In addition, we have developed a new indicator to check the stability of the obtained ranking results with regard to the individual business schools. The results show that the ranks of the individual business schools are quite stable. Nevertheless, we found some differences between publication-based and citation-based rankings. In both cases, however, the choice of the data source as well as switching from full to adjusted counting only have little impact on the ranking results. The main contribution of our approach to research in the field of university rankings is that it shows that focusing on a single (overall) indicator should be avoided, as this can easily lead to bias. Instead, different (partial) indicators should be calculated side by side to provide a more complete picture.

Characteristics of correction practice and its citation in library and information science journals

The correction practice of scientific publications is usually used to correct publication errors by issuing correction notices, and it is less explored compared to retraction practice. The aim of this study is to present an overview of correction practice and to explore the citation situation of correction notices in library and information science (LIS) journals, using 720 correction notices in the Web of Science from 2001–2020. Through bibliometrics and content analysis, we found the correcting rate of LIS was relatively low. The main types of corrected errors occurred in authorship, figure or table, references, etc. Most corrected errors were trivial or minor. The citation situation of correction notices was more complex than expected and could be classified into five types. It was relatively rare to cite both the corrected paper and correction notice in a standardized manner. The remaining four types of citation were unreasonable, which could influence citation practice and reduce the citations of corrected papers. We concluded that the appearance of the correction notice had affected the citation of the corrected papers to some extent, and researchers and databases needed to pay attention to this problem. We also provided some suggestions for improving correction practice.