Ranking Disciplinary Social Work Journals: Comparing Faculty Perceptions With Two Citation-Based Approaches

Abstract

Publishing in highly ranked disciplinary journals plays a critical role in career advancement. Yet, the process through which journals are classified as top-tier is largely unexamined in the social work literature. To better understand the utility of various methods for determining journal quality, we compare three basic approaches to ranking disciplinary journals: reputation, h-index values, and impact factors (IFs). More specifically, we compare faculty perceptions of social work journals in 2019 with faculty perceptions in 2000, Google Scholar h-index rankings from 2010, and Clarivate Analytics' IFs from 2008 and 2017. Method: To create a current, reputation-based ranking of disciplinarily periodicals, a national sample of tenure-track faculty (N 5 307) evaluated the overall quality and prestige of social work periodicals (N 5 64). We obtained prior faculty perceptions of quality and prestige from Sellers et al. (2004), h-index values from Hodge and Lacasse (2011), and 2008 and 2017 IFs from Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science portal. Results: Faculty perceptions of quality exhibited a relatively strong correlation with faculty perceptions in 2000 (r s 5 .76), suggesting that faculty perceptions regarding journal quality are relatively stable across decades. Among the citationbased approaches, the 2010 Google Scholar h-index values exhibited the strongest correlation with current faculty perceptions (r s 5 .81), and the 2017 IFs had the lowest correlation (r s 5 .48). Conclusions: The results provide some guidance to disciplinary stakeholders making assessments about top-tier journals. For instance, the relative stability of faculty perceptions enables scholars to have some confidence that journals that are currently perceived as top-tier will remain so in the future. Results also raise questions about the utility of relying upon IFs in assessments of journal quality.

Are Practitioners Equipped to Work With and Advocate for Members of the American Jewish Community? An Analysis of Discourse-Shaping Periodicals

“…Including a different set of journals or examining a different time frame may yield different results. Concurrently, the journals included in this study are widely viewed as the most prestigious in the profession (Hodge et al, 2021). These periodicals likely play an outsized role in shaping views in the profession.…”

“…As can be seen in Table 1, prior content analyses have commonly featured between three and nine periodicals, although computer-aided analyses have featured a larger sample of social work journals (c.f., Gringeri et al, 2010; Parsell et al, 2017). Consistent with previous research and the aims of the present study, journals had to meet the following criteria to be included in the sample: (a) general-interest journals that feature a wide range of topics; (b) national in scope, including both contributors and audience; (c) among the most prestigious journals in social work (Hodge et al, 2021; Sellers et al, 2006); (d) cover the 10-year time period of the present analysis; and (e) have been included in previous analyses.…”

“…With the exception of JSSWR, these journals have been included in previous content analyses (e.g., JSSR was included in both Gringeri et al, 2010 and Parsell et al, 2017). While JSSWR did not meet Criteria (d and e) listed above, we included it based upon its research orientation and faculty perceptions regarding its reputation (Hodge et al, 2021).…”

Social Work Research Map – ein niederschwelliger Zugang zu internationalen Publikationen der Sozialen Arbeit

“…Zunächst wurden die Abstracts aus den Zeitschriften herangezogen, deren Prestige von Sozialarbeitswissenschaftler*innen am höchsten bewertet wurden (Hodge et al 2020). 1 Da in dieser Studie ausschließlich US-amerikanische Wissenschaftler*innen befragt wurden und die Ergebnisse nur eingeschränkt mit zitationsbasierten Qualitätsindikatoren für Zeitschriften korrelieren (Hodge et al 2021), haben wir diese Liste mit den Journal-Impact-Faktoren aus 2019 verglichen (Clarivate Analytics 2019). Diese Citations Reports weisen jedoch Zeitschriften der Sozialen Arbeit nicht gesondert aus.…”

Co-Word Analysis of First-Authored Publications Written by Top Cited Scholars of Social Work

“…This method utilizes several techniques, including citation-based analysis, co-word analysis, keyword co-occurrence analysis, and co-authorship analysis, with co-word analysis being the most commonly used technique (van Eck & Waltman, 2014). Previous bibliometric analyses have mostly adopted bibliometric indicators, including but not limited to article counts (Baker, 1989;Jayaratne, 1979;Thyer & Polk, 1997), impact factors (Lacasse et al, 2011), h-index (Hodge et al, 2021;Holosko & Barner, 2016;Thyer et al, 2019) and g-index (Holosko, 2021), to evaluate the quantity and impact of the work of scholars, institutions and journals.…”