In this study we test various citation‐based journal weighting schemes, especially those based on the Liebowitz and Palmer methodology, as to their suitability for use in a nationwide research funding model. Using data generated by New Zealand’s academic economists, we compare the performance of departments, and individuals, under each of our selected schemes; and we then proceed to contrast these results with those generated by direct citation counts. Our findings suggest that if all citations are deemed to be of equal value, then schemes based on the Liebowitz and Palmer methodology yield problematic outcomes. We also demonstrate that even between weighting schemes based on a common methodology, major differences are found to exist in departmental and individual outcomes.
