Measuring individual research productivity: A review and development of the integrated research productivity index.

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate methods of measuring individual research productivity for counseling psychologists. Using the 60 members of the Journal of Counseling Psychology editorial board, the authors computed a comparison of 6 popular indices of productivity, revealing considerable levels of positive skewness, kurtosis, and overlap with each other. Combining the strengths of the 6 indices, the authors developed a new productivity index entitled the Integrated Research Productivity Index (IRPI). The IRPI measures individual productivity by statistically combining an individual's author-weighted publications, average times cited by other publications, and years since first publication into a comprehensive score. Productivity values and IRPI scores for 3 groups of counseling psychologists (Tyler Award recipients, Kuder Award recipients, and Division 17 Presidents) were computed to provide evidence of discriminant validity among the indices. In contrast to the other measures examined, the IRPI accounts for productivity per year and years in the field and assesses mean citation count per article as opposed to total citation count, thus yielding similar scores for Tyler (lifetime) and Kuder (early career) research award recipients. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).

The research productivity of academic psychologists: assessment, trends, and best practice recommendations

“…The Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) was used as a search tool to provide us with the most accurate and comprehensive results regarding an author's journal publishing activity. The SSCI appears to be the superior database due to its comprehensive listing across all social science fields and user-friendly nature (see Duffy et al 2008). Four coders were assigned the task of calculating the research productivity values for each faculty member, with each faculty member having two coders independently rate their productivity scores according to a standardized search and refine protocol.…”

“…Using this sample, we first examined to what degree different productivity indexes (i.e., publications, citation count) overlap. Based on previous research (Duffy et al 2008), we hypothesize that all indexes of productivity will highly correlate with each other. Second, we examined if gender differences in research productivity exist, and if so, do they change as a function of how long one has been a researcher (i.e., years in the field)?…”

“…How much weight would be put on such things as batting average (grants), stolen bases (book chapters), and runs scored (graduate students mentored) in addition to hits? Although most scholars seem to agree that research productivity is mainly defined by journal publications and citation counts (Duffy et al 2008), this remains a restricted value.…”

“…First, productivity values are in a constant state of flux, with new publications and citations being added at random intervals. Second, the database most commonly used to calculate the productivity values of psychologists (Social Science Citation Index, SSCI) only allows someone to search by last name and first and middle initial, and contains over 17,000 journals in 50 social science disciplines (Duffy et al 2008). This can easily result in calculation errors, especially for common last names.…”

“…When considering the true meaning of ''publish'' within this phrase, it is likely that academics define that word as research productivity, measured by quantity (and perhaps quality) of publications within academic journals (Duffy et al 2008). In professional sports, high levels of competition and salary have driven general managers (the deans of the sports world) to develop rigorous methodological tools to measure, track, and compare athlete productivity.…”