From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:15:57 -0700

Hi Anurag,

Could you please provide 2-3 numbers?

What fraction is still published by the elite journals now and what was earlier?

The top-cited articles are identified as such later in time. Most
likely, they were submitted to the elite journals but were rejected by
some reasons. This fact seems obvious but how to made it certain?

Ari Belenkiy

SFU
Canada

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:39 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: John Sack <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed15 Oct 2014 15:56:35 -0700
>
> (I am submitting this reply on behalf of Anurag Acharya
>   - John Sack )
>
> Joseph Esposito writes:
>
> >Not persuasive.  The number of articles continues to grow, the number
> >of slots in the so-called elite journals is pretty much constant.
>
> ANURAG:  Let me try again.
>
> As mentioned in the abstract and in the methods section, we picked a
> fixed & relatively low number of top-cited articles -- 1000 per
> category. The top 10 journals in a category, as a group, publish more
> than 1000 articles a year. So, it is not a matter of the size of the
> pot growing and the top-cited journals not growing. Rather, there are
> a fixed number of slots every year in each category and more of the
> slots each year are now being filled by articles published in
> non-elite journals.
>
> I would also like to point out that the results indicate that the
> elite journals still
> publish a substantial fraction of high-impact articles. They are still
> elite. But there is a clear and significant shift in the distribution
> and it occurs across a diverse range of research fields.
>
> cheers,
> anurag
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:34 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:18:06 -0400
> >
> > Not persuasive.  The number of articles continues to grow, the number
> > of slots in the so-called elite journals is pretty much constant.  If
> > all the seats are taken at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, do we expect
> > parents to tell their kids not to go to college at all?  Would we
> > expect that someone who attends the U. of Michigan or Villanova has no
> > economic contribution to make?  The question about this article is why
> > anyone thinks it is newsworthy.  Where was it published again?
> >
> > Joe Esposito
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:17 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: John Sack <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:49:53 -0700
> > >
> > > I am forwarding this response on behalf of Anurag Acharya at Google
> > >
> > > John Sack
> > > Founding Director
> > > HighWire Press
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > I would like to clarify couple of things about our paper. My comments
> > > are inline below,
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > anurag
> > >
> > > Corey Murata writes:
> > >
> > > The basic flaw in the research is centered around how they identify
> > > 'elite journals.'
> > >
> > > First, they are using incredibly broad disciplinary groupings from
> > > Google Scholar Metrics:
> > >
> > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues
> > >
> > > Economics, for example is lumped in with Business and Management, and
> > > if you look at the top ten journals in that broad group the only
> > > management journal is MIS Quarterly, all the rest are Economics and
> > > Finance.
> > >
> > > [[ANURAG]] As described in the Methods section of the paper, elite
> > > journals are identified  for each of the 261 specific subject
> > > categories (eg Immunology or Accounting & Taxation or Gender Studies
> > > or Finance) and NOT at the level of broad areas (eg Health & Medical
> > > Sciences or Business, Economics & Management).
> > >
> > > To get an overview of changes within each broad area, we determined
> > > the median, the 25th, and the 75th percentile subject categories
> > > within each area. We then picked the median subject category in each
> > > broad area as the representative for the area and plotted data for all
> > > three of median/25th-percentile/75th-percentile categories in the
> > > per-area graphs in Figure 2. The median/25th/75th percentile
> > > categories were computed afresh for every year to ensure that they
> > > remain representative of the area (details are in the Methods
> > > section).
> > >
> > > Second, they ignore the increase in the number and specialization of
> > > journals over the period of the study. This increasing availability of
> > > journals that are 'core' to a sub-disciplinary group of scholars would
> > > naturally lead to more high-quality articles being published outside
> > > of the 'elite' journals as defined by the authors of this paper. The
> > > increasing number of journals also means that the ten 'elite' journals
> > > becomes a progressively smaller percentage of the total scholarly
> > > output over time.
> > >
> > > [[ANURAG]] As mentioned above, the list of elite journals was computed
> > > separately for each of the 261 specific subject categories. Which
> > > means there are over 2500 journals that are considered elite each
> > > year. As mentioned in the Methods section, the list of elite (and
> > > non-elite) journals for each subject category was recomputed for each
> > > year. So shifts in the focus of a subject category or new journals
> > > that become a part of the "core" set would be reflected.
> > >
> > > The Methods section of the paper also mentions that the number of
> > > articles considered top-cited each year in a subject category was
> > > fixed at 1000. Therefore, growth in the total number of articles
> > > published isn't a significant factor.  The top ten journals in a
> > > subject category, as a group, publish more than 1000 articles per
> > > year.