The econphd.net rankings are among the most substantial in scope (covering 63 journals over roughly ten years, 1993-2003) and they are unique in detail (the only consistent rankings at the subdiscipline level). Detail is very important: I cannot think of anyone other than a dean or head of department who should really care about a department's overall ranking. It is hoped that these rankings are particularly useful to prospective PhD applicants. They should also help publicize specialized expertise at smaller departments. Journal selection and quality-adjustment are based on the citation analysis by Kalaitzidakis et al.
Apr 23, 2006 update: The new average productivity ranking is a "size-adjusted" version of the regular rankings. To calculate the "average equivalent papers" for a department, I rank its authors by individual scores and compute the average for the top 15. If a department has more than 15 authors, say 20, the remainder (5) is not counted in the ranking; if it has less than 15 authors, say 10, I effectively add (5) dummy authors with zero scores. Hence the ranking punishes departments whose publishing faculty falls short of a minimal critical size (in this case, fifteen). But, unlike the regular ranking, it does not punish departments further for being smaller than others.
The table also reports the average for all authors in
the department - but one should not read too much into this number. For
departments with many publishing authors, it is automatically biased toward
mediocrity, although an active faculty is clearly a good thing. One should
keep in mind that "author count" is not the same thing as a "faculty size
count." I do not have data about faculty size (and if I had, I would not
find them interesting). The average productivity ranking is not given for
subdisciplines because I believe that more expertise in a specialty is
valuable regardless of how many authors embody it. Hence the regular
subdiscipline rankings are most appropriate.
Issues (thanks to all correspondents):
Please accept that, even if I become aware of an inaccurate affiliation assignment, it cannot be corrected for reasons of consistency, except in cases of genuine error within the methodology.
All Economics network ranking av. productivity ranking
1. Economic History & Thought network ranking
2. Econometrics network ranking
3. Microeconomic Theory network ranking
4. Labor & Consumer Economics network ranking
5. IO / Business Economics network ranking
6. Public Economics network ranking
7. Macroeconomics network ranking
8. Trade & Development network ranking
9. Financial Economics network ranking
10. Resource & Agricultural Econ. network ranking
back to econphd•net