印度和美国图书馆情报学教师的研究效率:基于出版物、引文和h指数的比较

IF 1.6 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/09737766.2021.1936272
B. Lund, S. Maurya
{"title":"印度和美国图书馆情报学教师的研究效率:基于出版物、引文和h指数的比较","authors":"B. Lund, S. Maurya","doi":"10.1080/09737766.2021.1936272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study compared research productivity of Library and Information Science (LIS) faculties working in 61 government universities of India and 55 American Library Association-accredited LIS programs in the United States. A regression model is used to determine the effect of independent variables i.e. number of publications, number of citations per publication, and total number of citations for top-cited publication on h-index value of faculties. Further, k-means cluster analysis (three tier) is performed for each rank of faculties (full, associate & assistant professor) based on their publication and citation. The findings of this study indicate that for both countries h-index value of LIS faculties is related to number of publications and citations per publication, while mitigating the impact of a highly-cited publication. The top tier of Indian LIS faculties by publications, have more publications, citations for most-cited publication, and larger h-index than the lowest tier in the U.S. (though these researchers do have a higher number of citations per publication). The most productive LIS Faculties in the U.S. have about 3.5 times more publications, citations, and h-index than Indian LIS faculties. Finally, for the evaluation of LIS researchers for tenure and promotion decisions in regard to h-index, the study suggests that it may provide more equitable valuation of research productivity than looking at raw number of citation counts, while providing more information about quality of publications than just the raw number of publications alone.","PeriodicalId":10501,"journal":{"name":"COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management","volume":"15 1","pages":"89 - 105"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09737766.2021.1936272","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research productivity of library and information science faculty in India and the United States : A comparison based on publications, citations and h-index\",\"authors\":\"B. Lund, S. Maurya\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09737766.2021.1936272\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present study compared research productivity of Library and Information Science (LIS) faculties working in 61 government universities of India and 55 American Library Association-accredited LIS programs in the United States. A regression model is used to determine the effect of independent variables i.e. number of publications, number of citations per publication, and total number of citations for top-cited publication on h-index value of faculties. Further, k-means cluster analysis (three tier) is performed for each rank of faculties (full, associate & assistant professor) based on their publication and citation. The findings of this study indicate that for both countries h-index value of LIS faculties is related to number of publications and citations per publication, while mitigating the impact of a highly-cited publication. The top tier of Indian LIS faculties by publications, have more publications, citations for most-cited publication, and larger h-index than the lowest tier in the U.S. (though these researchers do have a higher number of citations per publication). The most productive LIS Faculties in the U.S. have about 3.5 times more publications, citations, and h-index than Indian LIS faculties. Finally, for the evaluation of LIS researchers for tenure and promotion decisions in regard to h-index, the study suggests that it may provide more equitable valuation of research productivity than looking at raw number of citation counts, while providing more information about quality of publications than just the raw number of publications alone.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10501,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"89 - 105\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09737766.2021.1936272\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2021.1936272\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2021.1936272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本研究比较了在印度61所政府大学和美国图书馆协会认可的55个图书馆与信息科学项目工作的图书馆与信息科学(LIS)教师的研究效率。采用回归模型确定发表论文数量、每篇论文被引次数、被引次数最多的论文总被引次数等自变量对院系h指数值的影响。此外,k-means聚类分析(三层)是根据每个级别的院系(正、副教授和助理教授)的发表和引用进行的。研究结果表明,两国大学教师的h指数值均与论文发表数和论文被引次数有关,同时降低了高被引论文的影响。在印度,排名靠前的学院发表的论文更多,被引用次数最多的论文被引用次数也更多,h指数也比美国排名靠后的大学高(尽管这些研究人员每篇论文的引用次数确实更高)。美国最具生产力的美国大学学院的出版物、引用和h指数是印度大学学院的3.5倍。最后,在评价美国学者的终身教职和晋升决策时,该研究表明,它可以提供比查看原始引用数更公平的研究生产力评估,同时提供更多关于出版物质量的信息,而不仅仅是出版物的原始数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Research productivity of library and information science faculty in India and the United States : A comparison based on publications, citations and h-index
The present study compared research productivity of Library and Information Science (LIS) faculties working in 61 government universities of India and 55 American Library Association-accredited LIS programs in the United States. A regression model is used to determine the effect of independent variables i.e. number of publications, number of citations per publication, and total number of citations for top-cited publication on h-index value of faculties. Further, k-means cluster analysis (three tier) is performed for each rank of faculties (full, associate & assistant professor) based on their publication and citation. The findings of this study indicate that for both countries h-index value of LIS faculties is related to number of publications and citations per publication, while mitigating the impact of a highly-cited publication. The top tier of Indian LIS faculties by publications, have more publications, citations for most-cited publication, and larger h-index than the lowest tier in the U.S. (though these researchers do have a higher number of citations per publication). The most productive LIS Faculties in the U.S. have about 3.5 times more publications, citations, and h-index than Indian LIS faculties. Finally, for the evaluation of LIS researchers for tenure and promotion decisions in regard to h-index, the study suggests that it may provide more equitable valuation of research productivity than looking at raw number of citation counts, while providing more information about quality of publications than just the raw number of publications alone.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Mapping of top papers in the subject category of Soil Science Mapping global research on expert systems Research trends in the field of natural language processing : A scientometric study based on global publications during 2001-2020 Classic articles in cervical cancer research : A bibliometric analysis Human and algorithmic decision-making in the personnel selection process: A comparative bibliometric on bias
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1