WHICH JOURNAL RANKINGS BEST EXPLAIN ACADEMIC SALARIES? EVIDENCE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The ranking of an academic journal is important to authors, universities, journal publishers, and research funders. Rankings are gaining prominence as countries adopt regular research assessment exercises that especially reward publication in high‐impact journals. Yet even within a rankings‐oriented discipline like economics there is no agreement on how aggressively lower‐ranked journals are down‐weighted and in how wide is the universe of journals considered. Moreover, since it is typically less costly for authors to cite superfluous references, whether of their own volition or prompted by editors, than it is to ignore relevant ones, rankings based on citations may be easily manipulated. In contrast, when the merits of publication in one journal or another are debated during hiring, promotion, and salary decisions, the evaluators are choosing over actions with costly consequences. We therefore look to the academic labor market, using data on economists in the University of California system to relate their lifetime publications in 700 different academic journals to salary. We test amongst various sets of journal rankings, and publication discount rates, to see which are most congruent with the returns implied by the academic labor market. (JEL A14, I23, J44)     

A TEST OF THE FORM-RESISTANT CORRELATION HYPOTHESIS: RATINGS, RANKINGS, AND THE MEASUREMENT OF VALUES

A number of researchers have argued that ranking techniquesare more appropriate than rating methods for the measurementof values in surveys. The form-resistant correlation hypothesisproposes that observed associations among values and betweenvalues and other variables should remain invariant across measurementmethods. However, some recent research on parental values forchild qualities suggests that ratings and rankings produce differentcorrelational results. The present study tests the hypothesisthat discrepancies between rating and ranking results are dueto the fact that, when responding to rating questions, somerespondents avoid making difficult choices between valued qualitiesby rating all the qualities as highly and equally desirable.Consistent with this hypothesis, when nondifferentiating respondentsare removed from the analyzed sample, the substantive resultsof analyses of rating data resemble the results typically obtainedusing ranking data. This suggests that ranking may be the superiormethod for measuring values.     

Generalized Gini Indices of Equality of Opportunity

This article considers the ranking of profiles of opportunity sets on the basis of their equality. A version of the Pigou–Dalton transfer principle that is appropriate for the measurement of opportunity inequality is introduced and used to axiomatize the class of generalized Gini equality of opportunity orderings. A characterization of the class of generalized Gini social preference orderings for opportunity profiles is also provided.     

On Preference, Freedom and Diversity

We study the problem of ranking sets of options in terms of freedom of choice. We propose a framework in which both the diversity of the options and the preferences of the agent over the options do play a role. We formulate some axioms that reflect these two aspects of freedom and we study their logical implications. Two different criteria for ranking sets are characterized, which generalize some of the rankings proposed so far in the literature.     

On the influence of a ranking system

Ranking systems are becoming increasingly important in many areas, in the Web environment and academic life for instance. In a world with a tremendous amount of choices, rankings play the crucial role of influencing which objects are tasted or selected. This selection generates a feedback when the ranking is based on citations, as is the case for the widely used invariant method. The selection affects new stated opinions (citations), which will, in turn, affect the next ranking. The purpose of this paper is to investigate this feedback in the context of journals by studying some simple but reasonable dynamics. Our main interest is in the long run behavior of the process and how it depends on the preferences, in particular on their diversity. We show that multiple long run behaviors may arise due to strong self-reinforcing mechanisms at work with the invariant method. These effects are not present in a simple search model in which individuals are influenced by the cites of the papers they first read.     

Ratings and rankings: reconsidering the structure of values and their measurement

Despite extensive discussion and analysis over the past three decades, researchers are still divided over the preferability of rating or ranking systems for measuring values. However, the debate originates from the false premise that one method must be used to the exclusion of the other. A conceptualization of the value structure that uses characteristics of both rating and ranking systems opens up theory and research to a more complex understanding of values. Data from the 1995–1997 World Values Survey demonstrate how using both rating and ranking systems can lead to distinct and equally valid conclusions about the differences in value importance among the nations of the world. This suggests that either method by itself provides an incomplete understanding of the value structure. While the potential methodological complications of using both ratings and rankings must be explored, the additional cost would be a productive investment for moving beyond the rating–ranking impasse.     

A Borda count for partially ordered ballots

The application of the theory of partially ordered sets to voting systems is an important development in the mathematical theory of elections. Many of the results in this area are on the comparative properties between traditional elections with linearly ordered ballots and those with partially ordered ballots. In this paper we present a scoring procedure, called the partial Borda count, that extends the classic Borda count to allow for arbitrary partially ordered preference rankings. We characterize the partial Borda count in the context of weighting procedures and in the context of social choice functions.     

No-envy, efficiency, and collective rationality

We consider fair collective choice functions (hereafter fair CCFs) which associate with each profile of extended preference orderings and each set of feasible social states a subset of the set of Pareto efficient and envy-free states for the preference profile. Our main objective is to examine compatibility of fair social choices with collective rationality. We formulate desirable properties of collective rationality, and look for CCFs satisfying them. Next, we show that any fair CCF violates most of collective rationality properties. Moreover, one of our results implies that no fair CCF can be rationalized by a social preference relation.     

On the multi-preference approach to evaluating opportunities

The purpose of the paper is to provide a general framework for analyzing “preference for opportunities.” Based on two simple axioms a fundamental result due to Kreps is used in order to represent rankings of opportunity sets in terms of multiple preferences. The paper provides several refinements of the basic representation theorem. In particular, a condition of “closedness under compromise” is suggested in order to distinguish the flexibility interpretation of the model from normative interpretations which play a crucial role in justifying the intrinsic value of opportunities. Moreover, the paper clarifies the link between the multiple preference approach and the “choice function” approach to evaluating opportunities. In particular, it is shown how the well-known Aizerman/Malishevski result on rationalizability of choice functions can be obtained as a corollary from the more general multiple preference representation of a ranking of opportunity sets. Received: 3 September 1996 / Accepted: 18 August 1997     

Toward a theory of choice: Socially embedded preference construction

We present a boundedly rational model of choice that makes room for individual values and social influences in a process of preference construction. It takes from the subjective expected utility model the notion that people assess their options in terms of expected outcomes, referenced to personal values, but it presumes that individuals assess sharply truncated lists of relevant options, outcomes and values and apply a classification logic rather than a calculative one. Such a model is consistent with the nature of evolved human cognitive abilities. The model treats cognitive heuristics and various forms of social influence as determinants of selection of the truncated lists and it treats moral norms as classification rules activated when certain actions and outcomes become salient. The model has implications for understanding how political rhetoric affects individual and social preferences and how “hot cognitions” fit into human choice and for developing improved methods of collective decision making.     

Where's the best medicine? The hospital rating game

On July 18, 1994, U.S. News and World Report published its annual ranking of America's best hospitals. The rankings were based on a model developed by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). National rankings are a type of program evaluation that deserve careful scrutiny with regard to their methods. While problems with measurement validity are discussed, the principle concern here was the model used to compile a final ranking of hospitals. The News-NORC model is typical of ranking schemes that usually reduce higher levels of measurement to lower ones in order to compute final scores. Such simple tabulation techniques, however, distort the ratios between the scores and bias the results. A type of percentaging, using part/whole percentages (P/W%), was used to show the differences between hospital rankings when data are kept at higher levels of measurement, such as interval or ratio levels. Percentaging methods produce more valid results when comparatively evaluating programs whether the goal is to produce national rankings or some other outcome.     

More on preference and freedom

The paper seeks to formalize the notion of effective freedom or the freedom to realize meaningful choices. The definition of meaningful choice used in this paper is based on the preference orderings that a reasonable person may have. I argue that only alternatives that can be selected by a reasonable person from the set of all possible alternatives provide a meaningful choice. I discuss this approach and provide an axiomatization of the cardinality rule and two lexicographic versions of this rule in this context. Received: 24 September 1996/Accepted: 26 January 2000     

Strategy-proofness of social welfare functions: The use of the Kemeny distance between preference orderings

The Kemeny distance for preference orderings is used to determine individual rankings of social preferences. Based on this distance function, the strategy-proofness of social welfare functions is examined. Our main result is an impossibility theorem stating that no social welfare function can be strategy-proof, if some additional properties are required.The work on this paper initiated while Walter Bossert was a visitor at the CentER for Economic Research at Tilburg University. The hospitality and the support of CentER and its members are gratefully acknowledged. Ton Storcken's research was supported by a grant from the Cooperation Centre Tilburg and Eindhoven University. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 1991 Canadian Economic Theory Meeting in Toronto. We thank the participants and especially Ingrid Peters-Fransen for comments. Substantial improvements are due to the suggestions of Bernard Monjardet and two referees.     

The value of being precise

This study investigates how individuals assess imprecise information. We focus on two essential dimensions of decision under uncertainty, outcomes and probabilities, and their respective precision. We believe the precision of information is highly relevant in the investment setting, as reflected in the well-known “home (familiarity) bias”, and the outcome and probability dimensions, separately or jointly, may affect investors’ knowledge of uncertainty and perceived risk of the investment options, and subsequently affect investors’ choices. To test this conjecture, we conducted three experiments. Our results show that 1) participants demonstrate a pattern of preference for precision and aversion of extreme vagueness and associate vagueness with higher perceived risk and lower investment (experiments one and two); 2) participants prefer vague outcome information to vague probability information (experiment two); 3) familiarity indeed positively affects the precision of estimated values, but this association is stronger for the outcome dimension than for probabilities (experiment three). Our results confirm that precision in information, especially in the outcome dimension has an impact on investors’ resource allocation choices.     

Different least square values,different rankings

The semivalues (as well as the least square values) propose different linear solutions for cooperative games with transferable utility. As a byproduct, they also induce a ranking of the players. So far, no systematic analysis has studied to which extent these rankings could vary for different semivalues. The aim of this paper is to compare the rankings given by different semivalues or least square values for several classes of games. Our main result states that there exist games, possibly superadditive or convex, such that the rankings of the players given by several semivalues are completely different. These results are similar to the ones D. Saari discovered in voting theory: There exist profiles of preferences such that there is no relationship among the rankings of the candidates given by different voting rules. Received: 5 November 2000/Accepted: 12 February 2001     

Assessing the Effectiveness of Faith-Based Programs

Abstract

The policy debate over faidibased initiatives has prompted calls for comparative effectiveness research. Drawing examples from an evaluation of California's Community and Faith-based Initiative (CFBI), we illustrate a research strategy that takes local networks as the primary unit of analysis. This approach focuses on understanding the roles different organizations play within local service delivery networks, and on analyzing how local actors coordinate services to affect participant, organization, and system outcomes. The network perspective casts new light on policy options, and suggests that caution is necessary when using administrative data to interpret program effectiveness.     

The moral basis of sustainable society: the Gandhian concept of ecological citizenship

Dominant approaches to sustainability have focused on environmental governance with efficient mechanisms and technical quick-fixes for regulatory changes and policy reforms within the growth-centred economic model. However, they fail to develop an authentic ‘ecological citizenship’ for a more fundamental change in the framework of moral values guiding individuals' behaviour and attitude towards the environment and their choices to live lightly on earth. This article argues that the transformation to a sustainable society necessitates deeper moral changes and the development of an ecological morality at the individual level as the core of sustainability. The article examines the distinctiveness of the Gandhian approach to ‘ecological citizenship’ within his paradigm of non-violence and ethical holism as an alternative to the dominant thinking. Within his broader moral-philosophical framework, the paper focuses on Gandhi's theories of eco-localism, unity of life, economics of well-being, and the moral praxis of subordinating the material to moral development realized by the human self through an ‘inner revolution’ with a goal to improve the ‘quality of man’, moving beyond the conventional ‘fear–greed’ dichotomy as motivators of behaviour to bring about a societal transformation towards a sustainable society based on freedom, equity, justice, and peace.     

Examining the Ethical Utility of Social Work Program Rankings in the US: Are We Measuring One Thing and Selling Another?

Social work program rankings are frequently used in the US to communicate program identity, and no ranking structure has become as commonly accepted as the one compiled by US News & World Report. However, the metrics used to assemble these rankings, and what the rankings have been used to communicate, have come under question over recent years. This project details an analysis that was conducted on the relationship between US News rankings for social work programs in the United States (n = 200) and Carnegie research designations for the universities with which those programs are affiliated. Findings suggest that as institutional size increases, so do rankings. This study assesses the strength of that relationship and questions the ethical utility of this ranking system, particularly when used as a tool to recruit students (a common practice in the United States). Additional metrics are suggested to help potential students make more informed decisions in reference to program selection.     

Third-party decision-making under risk as a function of prior gains and losses

Humans typically prefer risky options after incurring a financial loss, while generally preferring safer options after a monetary gain. Oftentimes we do not only make decisions for ourselves but also on behalf of others. In the present study we examine how decision-making on behalf of another person can alter risk preference for mixed gambles with moderate probabilities, as a function of prior monetary gains and losses. Furthermore, we test how the extent of accountability for choices and outcome further may impact these effects. To test this, participants performed a series of trials in which they could either gain or lose money depending on a separate, unrelated, task. Immediately following the respective gain or loss, they decided to either play or pass on a mixed gamble that could either double or eliminate their gain or loss. Importantly, participants decided either (1) for themselves, or (2) on behalf of another participant under outcome accountability, or (3) under full accountability (process and outcome). Results revealed increased risk-taking after incurring a loss as compared to a gain for both Self and Other choices. However, this effect was significantly smaller for choices on behalf of others, in particular when accountability was reduced. The reduced impact of gains and losses on risk behavior on behalf of others are discussed in terms of reduced saliency and subjective value for prior gain/loss contexts, and consequently reduced engagement of affective processes.