IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v56y2005i12p1314-1331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods

Author

Listed:
  • Lokman I. Meho
  • Kristina M. Spurgin

Abstract

This study evaluates the data sources and research methods used in earlier studies to rank the research productivity of Library and Information Science (LIS) faculty and schools. In doing so, the study identifies both tools and methods that generate more accurate publication count rankings as well as databases that should be taken into consideration when conducting comprehensive searches in the literature for research and curricular needs. With a list of 2,625 items published between 1982 and 2002 by 68 faculty members of 18 American Library Association– (ALA‐) accredited LIS schools, hundreds of databases were searched. Results show that there are only 10 databases that provide significant coverage of the LIS indexed literature. Results also show that restricting the data sources to one, two, or even three databases leads to inaccurate rankings and erroneous conclusions. Because no database provides comprehensive coverage of the LIS literature, researchers must rely on a wide range of disciplinary and multidisciplinary databases for ranking and other research purposes. The study answers such questions as the following: Is the Association of Library and Information Science Education's (ALISE's) directory of members a reliable tool to identify a complete list of faculty members at LIS schools? How many and which databases are needed in a multifile search to arrive at accurate publication count rankings? What coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases? Which research areas are well covered by which databases? What alternative methods and tools are available to supplement gaps among databases? Did coverage performance of databases change over time? What counting method should be used when determining what and how many items each LIS faculty and school has published? The authors recommend advanced analysis of research productivity to provide a more detailed assessment of research productivity of authors and programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lokman I. Meho & Kristina M. Spurgin, 2005. "Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(12), pages 1314-1331, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:56:y:2005:i:12:p:1314-1331
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.20227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20227
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.20227?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brady Lund, 2019. "Examination of correlates of H-index as a measure of research productivity for library and information science faculty in the United States and Canada," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 897-915, August.
    2. William H. Walters & Esther Isabelle Wilder, 2015. "Worldwide contributors to the literature of library and information science: top authors, 2007–2012," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 301-327, April.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    4. Zhenyue Zhao & Xuelian Pan & Weina Hua, 2021. "Comparative analysis of the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of top ranked library and information science schools in China and the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 931-950, February.
    5. Wen-Yau Cathy Lin, 2012. "Research status and characteristics of library and information science in Taiwan: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 7-21, July.
    6. A. Abrizah & A. N. Zainab & K. Kiran & R. G. Raj, 2013. "LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 721-740, February.
    7. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    8. Liwen Vaughan & Debora Shaw, 2008. "A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 317-330, February.
    9. Pin Li & Guoli Yang & Chuanqi Wang, 2019. "Visual topical analysis of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1753-1791, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:56:y:2005:i:12:p:1314-1331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.