Productivity of educational psychologists in educational psychology journals, 1997–2001

Smith, Megan L.; Plant, Marian; Carney, Russell N.; Arnold, Catherine Stein; Jackson, Anthony; Johnson, Lisa S.; Lange, Herbert; Mathis, Florian; Smith, Thomas J.

doi:10.1016/s0361-476x(02)00044-9

Cited by 43 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have been published about research productivity in educational psychology between 1991 and 2022 (Fong et al, 2022;Hsieh et al, 2004;Jones et al, 2010;Smith et al, 1998Smith et al, , 2003. In these studies, a "standard" set of journals have been repeatedly used to investigate individual and institutional productivity (i.e., Contemporary Educational Psychology, Educational Psychologist, Educational Psychology Review, and Journal of Educational Psychology).…”

Section: Prior Research On Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One major limitation of prior research on productivity in educational psychology refers to the selection of journals that impacts the way individual productivity is measured. An analysis of the selection of journals in previous productivity studies shows that most studies (i.e., Fong et al, 2022;Hsieh et al, 2004;Jones et al, 2010;Smith et al, 1998Smith et al, , 2003 examined articles published primarily in the four "standard" journals (i.e.,…”

Section: Limitations Of Prior Studies On Research Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cognition and Instruction has not been a part of the top 10 in the Web of Science "Psychology, Educational" list since 2019 and has an average rank of 17.17 between 2017 and 2022 (for a similar argument, see also Griffin et al, 2023). In contrast, Learning and Instruction and the Journal of the Learning Sciences have been top-tier journals for years (for a similar argument, see also Griffin et al, 2023), but have never been included in productivity rankings (e.g., Hsieh et al, 2004;Jones et al, 2010;Smith et al, 1998Smith et al, , 2003. To date, the study by Fong et al (2022) is the only study to include articles published in Learning and Instruction, which resulted in notable changes in the productivity ranking compared to using the "standard" set of journals and CI.…”

Section: Educational Psychologist Journal Of Educational Psychology E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early studies used different scoring methods to operationalize research productivity, resulting in partially divergent results (Hsieh et al, 2004). For example, Smith et al (1998Smith et al ( , 2003 selectively used the point-based score to measure research productivity, while Hsieh et al…”

Section: Educational Psychologist Journal Of Educational Psychology E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The count-based score is derived by simply counting the number of articles published, regardless of the author position (Hsieh et al, 2004). The pointbased score takes author position into account, with higher positions resulting in more points awarded (Smith et al, 1998(Smith et al, , 2003 for details, see Method section).…”

Section: Educational Psychologist Journal Of Educational Psychology E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Who Are the 50 Most Productive Researchers in Top-Tier Educational Psychology Journals From 2017 to 2022? A New Perspective with a Focus on Publication Trends and Diversity

Kubik,

Keller,

Jaspers

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study identified the most productive researchers in educational psychology by analyzing the number of published articles in top-tier, topic-general educational psychology journals between 2017 and 2022. Our study aimed to advance prior productivity research in various ways. We increased the sample of most productive researchers (i.e., top 50), used three different scoring methods, and relied on a more extensive list of journals identified in an objective manner (i.e., based on the Web of Science “Psychology, Educational” list). In addition, we conducted an online survey to shed light on characteristics of highly productive researchers and examined their publications in the target journals in terms of research topics, open science practices, collaboration, and internationalization of research. Our results showed that three senior researchers consistently appeared in the top 5 of the rankings (i.e., Richard E. Mayer, Reinhard Pekrun, and Herbert W. Marsh) and that the top 50 contained a relatively high percentage of early-career researchers (between 25% and 40%). The diversity of the most productive researchers was poor in that most of them self-identified as White (86%), male (59%), did not have a first-generation student status (60%), had a first-generation faculty status (86%), and had either European (46%) or North American nationalities (39%). As for the publication trends, we observed that most articles were quantitative in nature and that publications on average reported 1.2 studies and had 4.2 authors. Research topics were diverse, with the most frequent top 3 keywords used for publications being motivation, quantitative methods, and multimedia learning.

show abstract

Section: Prior Research On Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations Of Prior Studies On Research Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Educational Psychologist Journal Of Educational Psychology E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Educational Psychologist Journal Of Educational Psychology E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Educational Psychologist Journal Of Educational Psychology E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Who Are the 50 Most Productive Researchers in Top-Tier Educational Psychology Journals From 2017 to 2022? A New Perspective with a Focus on Publication Trends and Diversity

Kubik,

Keller,

Jaspers

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intervention research productivity from 2005 to 2014: Faculty and university representation in school psychology journals

Villarreal

Umaña

2017

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to identify authors and training programs making the most frequent contributions to intervention research published in six school psychology journals (School Psychology Review, School Psychology Quarterly, Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology International, and Journal of Applied School Psychology) over the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014. A total of 310 articles were identified as intervention articles; 919 unique authors, representing 289 universities or organizations, contributed to these publications. Top-ranked authors and universities were identified based on authorship rating and total publications, respectively. This evaluation highlights key contributors to the primary intervention research in school psychology, as well as themes of the publications of top-ranked individuals and programs. K E Y W O R D S research productivity, school psychology, faculty, intervention research

show abstract

Scholarly Productivity of School Psychology Faculty 2016–2020

Hulac,

Aspiranti,

Nyberg

2024

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviews of the scholarly productivity of school psychologists are useful for informing people who are in positions to review school psychology faculty member work. Normative data can serve as a benchmark to understand how productive school psychology faculty members are. The current research investigates faculty members at universities who have been identified as teaching future school psychology by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Data were collected for a total of 921 faculty members regarding their research output between January of 2016 and December of 2020. Faculty members who were visiting, adjunct, or appeared not to have a requirement for research publication were removed from the analysis. Additionally, the 50 most productive scholars were listed to provide researchers an opportunity to understand high productivity. These study results represent the most comprehensive review of the field's publication output over the 5‐year period and may be useful to tenure, promotion, and hiring committees who are in situations where they need to evaluate school psychology faculty members' scholarly output.

show abstract

Productivity of educational psychologists in educational psychology journals, 1997–2001

Cited by 43 publications

References 6 publications

Who Are the 50 Most Productive Researchers in Top-Tier Educational Psychology Journals From 2017 to 2022? A New Perspective with a Focus on Publication Trends and Diversity

Who Are the 50 Most Productive Researchers in Top-Tier Educational Psychology Journals From 2017 to 2022? A New Perspective with a Focus on Publication Trends and Diversity

Intervention research productivity from 2005 to 2014: Faculty and university representation in school psychology journals

Scholarly Productivity of School Psychology Faculty 2016–2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About