Ranking the Research Productivity of LIS Faculty and Schools: An Evaluation of Data Sources and Research Methods

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105802
Title:
Ranking the Research Productivity of LIS Faculty and Schools: An Evaluation of Data Sources and Research Methods
Author:
Meho, Lokman I.; Spurgin, Kristina M.
Citation:
Ranking the Research Productivity of LIS Faculty and Schools: An Evaluation of Data Sources and Research Methods 2005-10, 56(12):1314-1331 Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Publisher:
Wiley
Journal:
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Issue Date:
Oct-2005
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105802
Submitted date:
2006-11-13
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 Associationâ (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 Educationâ s (ALISEâ 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.
Type:
Journal Article (Paginated)
Language:
en
Keywords:
Databases; Academic Libraries; Research Methods; Citation Analysis; Bibliometrics; Indexing; Information Retrieval; Informetrics; Evaluation
Local subject classification:
Ranking of research productivity; Library and information science faculty; Library and information science schools; Database coverage evaluation; Research methods; Overlap and uniqueness between databases

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorMeho, Lokman I.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSpurgin, Kristina M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-11-13T00:00:01Z-
dc.date.available2010-06-18T23:34:41Z-
dc.date.issued2005-10en_US
dc.date.submitted2006-11-13en_US
dc.identifier.citationRanking the Research Productivity of LIS Faculty and Schools: An Evaluation of Data Sources and Research Methods 2005-10, 56(12):1314-1331 Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technologyen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/105802-
dc.description.abstractThis 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 Associationâ (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 Educationâ s (ALISEâ 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.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.subjectDatabasesen_US
dc.subjectAcademic Librariesen_US
dc.subjectResearch Methodsen_US
dc.subjectCitation Analysisen_US
dc.subjectBibliometricsen_US
dc.subjectIndexingen_US
dc.subjectInformation Retrievalen_US
dc.subjectInformetricsen_US
dc.subjectEvaluationen_US
dc.subject.otherRanking of research productivityen_US
dc.subject.otherLibrary and information science facultyen_US
dc.subject.otherLibrary and information science schoolsen_US
dc.subject.otherDatabase coverage evaluationen_US
dc.subject.otherResearch methodsen_US
dc.subject.otherOverlap and uniqueness between databasesen_US
dc.titleRanking the Research Productivity of LIS Faculty and Schools: An Evaluation of Data Sources and Research Methodsen_US
dc.typeJournal Article (Paginated)en_US
dc.identifier.journalJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technologyen_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.