Postscript on program rankings

Cronin, Blaise; Overfelt, Kara

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199602)47:2<173::aid-asi10>3.0.co;2-6

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The total productivity of each department is presumably related to the number of faculty, and respondents to the U.S. News survey may or may not have considered department size when judging academic quality. Previous research suggests, however, that perceived quality is more closely associated with total departmental productivity than with productivity per faculty member (Cronin & Overfelt, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012

Walters

Wilder

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the contributions of particular disciplines, countries, and academic departments to the literature of library and information science (LIS) using data for the articles published in 31 journals from 2007 to 2012. In particular, we examine the contributions of authors outside the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada; faculty in departments other than LIS; and practicing librarians. Worldwide, faculty in LIS departments account for 31% of the journal literature; librarians, 23%; computer science faculty, 10%; and management faculty, 10%. The top contributing nations are the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, China, Canada, and Taiwan. Within the United States and the United Kingdom, the current productivity of LIS departments is correlated with past productivity and with other measures of reputation and performance. More generally, the distribution of contributions is highly skewed. In the United States, five departments account for 27% of the articles contributed by LIS faculty; in the United Kingdom, four departments account for nearly twothirds of the articles. This skewed distribution reinforces the possibility that high-status departments may gain a permanent advantage in the competition for students, faculty, journal space, and research funding. At the same time, concentrations of research-active faculty in particular departments may generate beneficial spillover effects.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012

Walters

Wilder

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, for the first time, we apply the h ‐index to information science (IS) and compare rankings based on raw citation counts with those based on h ‐counts. In IS, as in many other fields, there is a robust, ongoing debate on the pros and cons of evaluative bibliometrics and the associated techniques (e.g., Budd, 2000; Cronin & Overfelt, 1996; Meho & Spurgin, 2005). We identified 31 influential information science faculty from the United States.…”

Section: Approach and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the h‐index to rank influential information scientistss

Cronin

Meho

2006

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

Self Cite

274

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

show abstract

“…Although the proponents argue that this method is an indispensable support tool for traditional evaluative measures (Cronin & Overfelt, 1994; Garfield, 1983a, 1983b; Glanzel, 1996; Koenig, 1982, 1983; Kostoff, 1996; Lawani & Bayer, 1983; Narin, 1976; Narin & Hamilton, 1996; van Raan, 1996, 1997), critics claim that it has some serious problems or limitations that impact its validity, including the following: (1) Citation counts give no clue why a work is being cited; (2) citations are field‐dependent and may be influenced by time, number of publications, access to or knowledge of the existence of needed information, as well as the visibility and/or professional rank of the authors; and (3) citation databases provide credit only to the first author, primarily cover English journal articles published in the United States, are not comprehensive in coverage, and have many technical problems such as synonyms, homonyms, clerical errors, and limited coverage of the literature (MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 1986, 1989, 1996; Seglen, 1992, 1998). Studies that report both the validity of citation counts in research assessments and the positive correlation between them and both peer evaluations and publication counts have been discussed and reviewed by many, including Baird and Oppenheim (1994), Biggs and Bookstein (1988), Cronin and Overfelt (1996), Holmes and Oppenheim (2001), Kostoff (1996), Narin (1976), Narin and Hamilton (1996), Oppenheim (1995), Seng and Willett (1995), and Smith (1981).…”

Section: Ranking Studies In Library and Information Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%