Scholarly productivity in communication studies: five-year review 2012–2016

Surveying journalists in the “New Normal”: Considerations and recommendations

“…Indeed, the significant social, economic, and technological changes within the industry -and society more broadly -in recent years have required scholars to reassess existing theories and measure attitudes and behaviors toward new phenomena (Sherwood and O'Donnell, 2018;Zamith and Braun, 2019), often by using surveys. This, combined with increasing research productivity expectations in the academy (Griffin et al, 2018), and the maturation of journalism studies as a subfield (Carlson et al, 2018) have arguably resulted in more surveys of journalists than ever before.…”

The Evolution of Research in Journalism and Communication: An Analysis of Scholarly CIOS-Indexed Journals From 1915 to Present

“…As Feeley et al (2011) note, the predominance of speech communication programs and scholars on past productivity lists (e.g., Burroughs et al (1989); Griffin et al, 2018; Hickson et al, 2004) reflects content dimensions inherent to the original 24 journals included in the original Communication Index. By expanding that list over seven-fold to include a wider array of JMC outlets, the present study significantly extends past work, providing a more representative picture of the diversity of our field.…”

“…While no single method is comprehensive, scholarly productivity rates are a valuable data point that can be used to communicate departmental contribution and prestige. Scholarly productivity research can help illuminate scholarly contributions made by individual faculty (e.g., Griffin et al, 2018) and full departments (Feeley et al, 2011). This information provides a vital data point that is necessary to consider when conducting holistic assessments about departmental value in the field of communication and at home institutions.…”

“…Hickson et al (2004) note that by the late 1970s, “assessment had achieved a place in communication,” with academic journals emerging as the “the gatekeepers of knowledge of the profession” (p. 324). Subsequent investigations have examined research article productivity in such sub-domains as telecommunication (e.g., Vincent, 1991), advertising (Zou, 2005), across ethnic diasporas in Communication (So, 2001), by gender (Hickson et al, 1992), and across the Communication field generally (e.g., Griffin et al, 2018). To wit, Stephen (2014) concludes that the century-old Communication discipline has produced a corpus of over 65,000 articles, the dissemination of which has increased so dramatically as “to likely leave many communication scholars unaware of evolving currents in scholarly conversation occurring beyond the boundaries of their own specialties” (p. 19).…”

COVID-19 Konulu Medya ve İletişim Çalışmalarının Bibliyometrik Profili

“…Pek çok alanda olduğu gibi iletişim alanının da genel yapısını ortaya koymaya yönelik bibliyometrik araştırmalar yapılmaktadır (Buhmann, Ihlen & Aaen-Stockdale, 2019;Steensen & Ahva, 2015;Ulu & Akdağ, 2015). Bu araştırmaların bir kısmında bilimsel dergilerin etki değerlerinin de analiz edildiği anlaşılmaktadır (Demeter, 2018;Griffin, Bolkan & Dahlbach, 2018;Vizoso, Pérez-Seijo, & López-García, 2019). Türkiye'deki iletişim alanına yönelik bibliyometrik araştırmalarda ise incelenen makalelerin kaynakçalarında yer alan yayınlara yönelik atıf analizlerinin eksikliği göze çarpmaktadır.…”