Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 56, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 1314-1331

  Meho, Lokman I ^a   Spurgin, Kristina M ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA SOURCES; INACCURATE RANKINGS; MULTIFILE SEARCH; SCHOOLS;

DATABASE SYSTEMS; DIGITAL LIBRARIES; LEARNING SYSTEMS; ONLINE SEARCHING; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

EID: 27744516966     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20227     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Association for Library and Information Science Education. (2003). LIS research areas classification scheme. Retrieved May 15, 2004, from http: //www.alise.org/research_class_guide.html
2. Baird, L.M., & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do citations matter? Journal of Information Science, 20(1), 2-15.
3. Bates, M.J. (1998). The role of publication type in the evaluation of LIS programs. Library & Information Science Research, 20(2), 187-198.
4. Biggs, M., & Bookstein, A. (1988). What constitutes a high-quality M.L.S. program? Forty-five faculty members' views. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 29(1), 28-46.
5. Blake, V.L.P., & Tjoumas, R. (1988). Research as a factor in faculty evaluation: The rules are a-changin'. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 31(1), 3-24.
6. Bookstein, A., & Biggs, M. (1987). Rating higher education programs: The case of the 1986 White survey. The Library Quarterly, 57(4), 351-399.
7. Boyce, B.R., & Hendren C. (1996). Authorship as a measure of the productivity of schools of library and information science. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 37(3), 250-271.
8. Brace, W. (1992). Quality assessment of library and information science school faculties. Education for Information, 10(2), 115-123.
9. Budd, J.M. (2000). Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty: An update, The Library Quarterly, 70(2), 230-245.
10. Budd, J.M., & Seavey, C.A. (1996). Productivity of U.S. library and information science faculty: The Hayes study revisited. The Library Quarterly, 66(1), 1-20.
11. Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the library periodical literature: Content and authorship. College & Research Libraries, 52(1), 38-53.
12. Chubin, D.E., & Hackett, E.J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
13. Coblans, H. (1972). The literature of librarianship and documentation: The periodicals and their bibliographical control. Journal of Documentation, 28(1), 56-66.
14. Cole, S., & Cole, J.R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition. American Sociological Review 32(3), 377-390.
15. Cole, S., & Cole, J.R. (1968). Visibility and the structural bases of awareness of scientific research. American Sociological Review, 33(3), 397-413.
16. Cronin, B. (2001). Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on Web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 27(1), 1-7.
17. Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1994). Citation-based auditing of academic performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(2), 61-72.
18. Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1996). Postscript on program rankings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(2), 173-176.
19. Danton, J.P. (1983). Notes on the evaluation of library schools. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 24(2), 106-116.
20. Edwards, T. (1976). A comparative analysis of the major abstracting and indexing services for library and information science. UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, 30(1), 18-25.
21. Eisbach, K.D., & Kramer, R.M. (1997). Members' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442-476.
22. Ernest, D.J., Lange, H.R., & Herring, D. (1988). An online comparison of three library science databases. RQ, 28(2), 185-194.
23. Fogarty, T.J., & Saftner, D.V. (1993). Academic department prestige: A new measure based on the doctoral student labor market. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 427-449.
24. Garfield, E. (1983a). How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations, and when is it relevant, part 1. Current Contents, 44, 5-13.
25. Garfield, E. (1983b). How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations, and when is it relevant, part 2. Current Contents, 45, 5-14.
26. Garland, K. (1991). The nature of publications authored by library and information science faculty. Library & Information Science Research, 13(1), 49-60.
27. Gilbert, G.N. (1978). Measuring the growth of science: A review of indicators of scientific growth. Scientometrics, 1(1), 9-34.
28. Gilchrist, A. (1966). A survey of leading abstracts services in documentation and an identification of key journals. Aslib Proceedings, 18(3), 62-80.
29. Glanzel, W. (1996). The needs for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics, 35(2), 167-176.
30. Gluck, M. (1990). A review of journal coverage overlap with an extension to the definition of overlap. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(1), 43-60.
31. Goldstein, S. (1973). Statistical bibliography and library periodical literature: 4. 1972 Abstracting, indexing, and contents coverage of library and information science periodicals. CALL, 2(4), 3-13.
32. Gourman, J. (1985). The Gourman Report: A rating of graduate and professional programs in American and international universities (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: National Educational Standards.
33. Harter, S.P., & Serebnick, J. (1990). Dismayed at methodology. Library Journal, 115(11), 10.
34. Hawkins, D.T., & Miller, B. (1977). On-line data base coverage of the on-line information-retrieval literature. Online Review, 1(1), 59-64.
35. Hayes, R.M. (1983). Citation statistics as a measure of faculty rsearch productivity. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 23(3), 151-172.
36. Hernon, P. (1990). Questioning Wallace's research. Library Journal, 115(113), 8.
37. Holmes, A., & Oppenheim, C. (2001). Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and Information Management. Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved January 15, 2004, from http://informationr.net/ ir/6-2/paper103.html
38. Hood, W.W., & Wilson, C.S. (2001). The scatter of documents over data-bases in different subject domains: How many databases are needed? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(14), 1242-1254.
39. Howard, M.M. (2002). Student use of rankings in national magazines in the college decision-making process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
40. Jacso, P. (1998). Analyzing the journal coverage of abstracting/indexing databases at variable aggregate and analytic levels. Library & information Science Research 20(2), 133-151.
41. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13(5), 261-276.
42. Koenig, M.E.D. (1982). Determinants of expert judgment of research performance. Scientometrics, 4(5), 361-378.
43. Koenig, M.E.D. (1983). Bibliometric indicators versus expert opinion in assessing research performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(2), 136-145.
44. Kostoff, R.N. (1996). Performance measures for government-sponsored research: Overview and background. Scientometrics, 36(3), 281-292.
45. LaBorie, T., & Halperin, M. (1981). The ERIC and LISA databases: How the sources of library science literature compare. Database, 4(3), 32-37.
46. LaBorie, T., Halperin, M., & White, H.D. (1985). Library and information science abstracting and indexing services: Coverage, overlap, and context. Library & Information Science Research, 7(2), 183-195.
47. Lawani, S.M., & Bayer, A.E. (1983). Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications: New evidence with peer assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(1), 59-66.
48. Machung, A. (1998). Playing the rankings game. Change, 30(4), 12-16.
49. MacRoberts, M.H., & MacRoberts, B.R. (1986). Quantitative measures of communication in science: A study of the formal level. Social Studies of Science, 16(1), 151-187.
50. MacRoberts, M.H., & MacRoberts, B.R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342-349.
51. MacRoberts, M.H., & MacRoberts, B.R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444.
52. Martin, B.R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362.
53. McDonough, P.M., Antonio, A.L., Walpole, M., & Perez, L.X. (1998). College rankings: Democratized college knowledge for whom? Research in Higher Education, 39(5), 513-537.
54. McGrath, W.E. (1993). The reappearance of rankings: Reliability, validity, explanation, quality, and the mission of library and information science. The Library Quarterly, 63(2), 192-198.
55. Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R.G. (1999). U.S. News & World Report's college rankings: Why do they matter? Change, 31(6), 42-52.
56. Mulvaney, J.P. (1992). The characteristics associated with perceived quality in schools of library and information science. The Library Quarterly, 62(1), 1-27.
57. Mulvaney, J.P. (1993). The characteristics associated with perceived quality in schools of library and information science: An update and prediction. The Library Quarterly, 63(2), 189-191.
58. Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons.
59. Narin, F., & Hamilton, K.S. (1996). Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics, 36(3), 293-310.
60. Nisonger, T.E. (2004). Citation autobiography: An investigation of ISI database coverage in determining author citedness. College & Research Libraries, 65(2), 152-163.
61. Oppenheim, C. (1995). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise ratings for British Library and information science university departments. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 18-27.
62. Pettigrew, K.E., & Nicholls, P.T. (1994). Publication patterns of LIS faculty from 1982-1992: Effects of doctoral programs. Library & Information Science Research 16(2), 139-156.
63. Read, E.J., & Smith, R.C. (2000). Searching for library and information science literature: A comparison of coverage in three databases. Library Computing, 19(1-2), 118-126.
64. Reed, K.L. (1995). Citation analysis of faculty publication: Beyond Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 83(4), 503-508.
65. Roush, W. (1995). Grad schools ratings rankle. Science 269(5231), 1660-1662.
66. Seglen, P.O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628-638.
67. Seglen, P.O. (1998). Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 69(3), 224-229.
68. Seng, L.B., & Willett, P. (1995). The citedness of publications by United Kingdom library schools. Journal of Information Science, 21(1), 68-71.
69. Smith, L.C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83-106.
70. Stock, W.A., & Alston, R.M. (2000). Effect of graduate-program rank on success in the job market. Journal of Economic Education, 31(4), 389-401.
71. Stuart, D.L. (1995). Reputational rankings: Background and development. In R.D. Walleri & M.K. Moss (Eds.), Evaluating and responding to college guidebooks and rankings (pp. 13-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
72. U.S. News & World Report. (1999). Library science: Top schools. Retrieved 1999, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/beyond/bcinfos.htm
73. van Raan, A.F.J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer-review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.
74. van Raan, A.F.J. (1997). Scientometrics: State of the art. Scientometrics, 38, 205-218.
75. Varlejs, J., & Dalrymple, P. (1986). Publication output of library and information science faculty. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 27(1): 71-89.
76. Wallace, D.P. (1990). The most productive faculty. Library Journal 115(8), 61-63.
77. Watson, P. (1985) Production of scholarly articles by academic librarians and library school faculty. College & Research Libraries, 46(4), 334-342.
78. White, H.D. (1990). Author co-citation analysis: Overview and defense. In C.L. Borgman (Ed.), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (pp. 84-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
79. White, H.S. (1987). Perceptions by educators and administrators of the ranking of library school programs: An update and analysis. The Library Quarterly, 57(3), 252-268.
80. White, H.S. (1993). Rankings of library and information science faculty and programs: The third in a series of studies undertaken at six-year intervals. The Library Quarterly, 63(2), 166-188.
81. Wilson, P. (1979). Factors affecting research productivity. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 20(1), 3-24.
82. Yerkey, A. (1983). A cluster analysis of several patterns among bibliographic databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(5), 350-355.
83. Yerkey, A.N., & Glogowski, M. (1989). Bibliographic scatter of library and information science literature. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 30(2), 90-111.
84. Yerkey, A.N., & Glogowski, M. (1990). Scatter of library and information science topics among bibliographic databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(4), 245-253.