A Web-based survey of faculty at all ACSP schools is used to assess the value peers place on various journals. The results of the survey show that two journals—the Journal of the American Planning Association and the Journal of Planning Education and Research—dominate all others in importance. The authors analyze the survey data to identify how the relative valuation of journals differs by individual faculty or institutional characteristics. The authors then test whether the journals’ importance by peer judgment is related to journal impact factors. The results demonstrate clearly there is no correlation between the two.
Australian Research Council.2008. ERA indicator descriptions. Commonwealth of Australia. www.arc.gov.au/pdf/ERA_Indicator_Descriptors.pdf.
2.
Bell, G.1977. Periodical literature on human settlements; evaluation and recommendations. Journal of the American Institute of Planners43 (2): 178-81.
3.
Cameron, B.D.2005. Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications, portal. Libraries and the Academy5:105-25.
4.
Diamond, P.A., and J.A. Hausman.1994. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number?Journal of Economic Perspectives8 (4): 45-65.
5.
Garfield, E.1972. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science178: 471-79.
6.
Goldstein, H., and J. Carmin.2007. Compact, diffuse, or would-be discipline? Assessing cohesion in planning scholarship, 1963-2002. Journal of Planning Education and Research26:66-79.
7.
Gordon, M.D.1982. Citation ranking versus subjective evaluation in the determination of journal hierarchies in the social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science33 (1): 55-57.
8.
Hecht, F., B.K. Hecht, and A.A. Sandberg.1998. The journal "impact factor": A misnamed, mislead, misused measure. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics104:77-81.
9.
MacRoberts, M.H., and B.R. MacRoberts .1989. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences40:342-49.
10.
Maier, G.2006. Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals. Scientometrics69 (3): 651-67.
11.
Maier, G.2007. What do we think are the most important journals in regional science? Science Regionali, Italian Journal of Regional Science6 (1): 5-34.
12.
McAllister, P.R., R.C. Anderson, and F. Narin.1980. Comparison of peer and citation assessment of the influence of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science31 (3): 147-52.
13.
Monastersky, R.2005. The number that is devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October14, pp. A12-A17.
14.
Myers, D., and T. Banerjee.2005. Toward greater heights for planning . Journal of the American Planning Association71 (2): 121-29.
15.
Portney, P.R.1994. The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives8 (4): 3-18.
16.
Seglen, P.O.1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal314:498-502.
17.
Stevens, G.1990. An alliance confirmed: Planning literature and the social sciences. Journal of the American Planning Association56 (3): 341-49.
18.
Stiftel, B., and C. Mukhopadhyay .2007. Thoughts on Anglo-American hegemony in planning scholarship: Do we read each other's work? Town Planning Review78 (5): 545-72.
19.
Toulmin, S.1972. Human understanding. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
20.
Transportation Research Board.2009. Information for authors. http://onlinepubs.trb..org/onlinepubs/archive/Guidelines/Authors.pdf .
21.
van Raan, A.F.J.2005. Fatal attraction; conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics62:133-43.
22.
Webster, C.2006. Ranking planning journals. Environment and Planning B33:485-90.
