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.