The Perception of Library and Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans and ARL Library Directors: A Replication of the Kohl–Davis Study

Abstract

Analyzing the collective opinion of presumed experts, often termed a perception study, is a frequently used approach for rating journals or evaluating education programs. Replicating the 1985 Kohl-Davis study, seventy-one library and information science (LIS) journals are ranked according to their mean rating on a 1 to 5 ordinal scale by deans of ALA-accredited education programs and by the directors of ARL libraries (surveyed during the summer of 2003). Comparison of the results with the 1985 study found considerable continuity in journal perceptions over the past two decades, but more so by directors than deans. A weak to moderate correlation was found between deans' ratings and Journal Citation Reports citation scores, whereas the correlations between directors' perceptions and citation data were weak to nonexistent. The findings confirm a hierarchy of prestige among LIS journals, but the hierarchical order differs somewhat between deans and directors. lthough, in theory, every research article should be judged on its own merits, the journal in which it is published o en serves as a proxy indicator of research quality. The evaluation of scholarly journals is important for selection and cancellation decisions by librarians, the evaluation of faculty and librarians for promotion and tenure as well as annual performance reviews, manuscript submission decisions by authors, monitoring of their journals by editors and publishers, and familiarizing new doctoral students or outsiders (such as members of a university-wide promotion and tenure commi ee evaluating faculty from other departments) with a field's journals.

Library School Programs and the Successful Training of Academic Librarians to Meet Promotion and Tenure Requirements in the Academy

“…22 Thomas Nisonger joined with Charles Davis to repeat the study that was published in 2005, increasing the number of journals to be ranked from thirty-one in the original study to seventy-one. 23 Replicating the original Kohl and Davis survey, respondents were asked to rate journals on a 1 to 5 ordinal scale "concerning how important publication in that journal was for promotion and tenure at their institution." 24 Nisonger and Davis added a second component to the survey, asking the ARL Library Directors and the Deans of Library and Information Schools to list "in no particular order the five most prestigious journals to have published in for promotion and tenure purposes at your institution."…”

Positioning Open Access Journals in a LIS Journal Ranking

“…21 • Directory of Open Access Journals collection of a total of 116 OA journals in LIS, retrieved at the end of 2010.…”

Assessing Library Scholarship: Experience at a Land Grant University

“…Nissonger and Davis continue this practice, comparing the opinions of ARL library directors with those of ALAaccredited LIS programs. 36 They show a hierarchy of LIS journals, but that composition is slowly changing as LIS becomes more diverse and interdisciplinary. They also point out that a low-ranking journal may be important for a specialized audience.…”