Faculty Publication Productivity Research Articles

Patterns and Profiles in Faculty Publication Productivity

Unlike prior studies that have examined the research productivity to develop various rank-order metrics of particular scholars or institutions, we seek to determine ways in which criminology and criminal justice faculty at the top 21 doctoral programs publish their research. To account for a potential diversity in faculty publication productivity, our study considers various outlets for faculty publications—journal articles, books, and book chapters—and develops composite profiles of publication productivity. Our intention is not to rank faculty and determine academic stars, but to distinguish groups of faculty similar in their patterns of faculty productivity. We analyze the publications of over 90% of all tenured and tenure-track faculty employed by the top 21 U.S. doctoral programs in criminology and criminal justice. Our latent profile analysis yielded five distinct profiles of productivity among the faculty in the top doctoral programs. Our study reaffirms the need for the use of multidimensional measures of publication productivity.

Faculty Publication Productivity and Collaboration in Pakistan: Using Mixed Methods to Compare Foreign and Domestic Doctoral Degree Holders

Faculty Publication Productivity and Collaboration in Pakistan: Using Mixed Methods to Compare Foreign and Domestic Doctoral Degree Holders

Research Productivity of Foot and Ankle Fellowship Faculty.

Contribution to literature is critical for progress in the field of orthopaedics. No previous study has yet examined the academic productivity of foot and ankle surgery fellowship faculty. To evaluate the publishing productivity of foot and ankle fellowship faculty. Faculty and program characteristics of orthopaedic foot and ankle fellowship programs across the United States and Canada were collected from American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and program websites. Faculty publication productivity measures, including publications, number of publications in specific journals, number of citations, and Hirsch index (h-index) were gathered using the Scopus database. A total of 48 AOFAS foot and ankle surgery fellowship programs were identified with an associated 185 faculty members. The mean number of publications per faculty member was 44.9 (SD = 53.0; range = 0-323), with a mean h-index of 11.9 (SD = 10.6; range = 0-54). A total of 144 (77.8%) academic-affiliated faculty had a significantly greater number of publications (P < .01), total citations (P < .05), and publications in Foot and Ankle International (P < .05), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (P < .05), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (P < .05), and Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (P < .05) compared to the 41 (22.2%) nonacademic faculty. There were no significant differences between measures of publication productivity between male and female faculty, except for maximum citations in a single article (67.1 vs 142.3; P < .05). Academic-affiliated foot and ankle fellowship faculty have higher research productivity than nonacademic surgeons. The mean h-index of foot and ankle fellowship faculty was 11.9, which is lower than that reported in sports, joints, and spine fellowship faculty but higher than that reported for hand fellowship faculty. Level IV.

Internationalizing a Broader View of Scholarship: An Exploratory Study of Faculty Publication Productivity in Boyer’s Four Domains of Scholarship in English-speaking Universities

Boyer’s four domains of scholarship provided the basis for a comparative investigation of the scholarly output of faculty members in 14 countries and at 100 English-speaking universities on the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2013–2014) top-400 institutions. Full-time university faculty members who held tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track academic appointments across three high-consensus and three low-consensus academic fields were the population of interest. The findings revealed that faculty members in US Research I and doctoral-granting universities and their international faculty counterparts in English-speaking universities publish relatively similar levels of scholarship directed toward application and discovery and have similar levels of inactivity in their publication of teaching-oriented scholarship. Tests for academic discipline-specific differences revealed little variation except for the finding that academic chemists tend to produce more publications in the application domain. Cross-national variation was also found in the publication of application-oriented scholarship. Suggestions for further research are proposed.

Publication Numbers are Increasing at American Research Universities

A Review of:&#x0D; Budd, J. (2017). Faculty publications and citations: a longitudinal examination. College &amp; Research Libraries, 78(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.1.80&#x0D; Abstract&#x0D; Objective – To study the publishing output and citation activity of faculty at research universities.&#x0D; Design – Bibliometric and citation analysis.&#x0D; Setting – Academic citation databases.&#x0D; Subjects – Institutions in the United States that are members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).&#x0D; Methods – This study builds on three previous studies conducted by the author looking at faculty publication productivity, which were conducted for three different time periods beginning in 1991. For the present study, the author searched Scopus by institution to collect the total number of publications and citations for the faculty of more than 100 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member universities, covering the years 2011 to 2013. The author acquired the total number of faculty at each institution from the ARL website. The faculty number from the ARL website and publication and citation data from Scopus were used to calculate the per capita publication and citation numbers for each institution. The author calculated the total mean number of publications and the mean number of per capita publications per university. Chi tests were used to compare the means for statistical significance. &#x0D; Main Results – The number of both total and per capita publications for each institution went up over the course of all three studies. The mean number of total publications per university for 1991 to 1993, the first time period studied, was 4,595.8; for the time period of the current study, 2011 to 2013, the mean was 9,662.0. For per capita publications, the mean for 1991 to 1993 was 3.56 and the mean for the present study was 5.96. Based on chi-square tests, the results were found to be statistically significant.&#x0D; Conclusions – The study found that the number of total publications increased significantly over time, exceeding the author’s statistical expectations based on previous work.

Gender and Radiology Publication Productivity: An Examination of Academic Faculty From Four Health Systems in the United States

ObjectivesTo compare male and female radiology faculty publication productivity metrics at four major academic centers. Materials and MethodsAll Radiology Department faculty members at four academic medical centers from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2015, were included. Publication metrics including total number of manuscripts published; h- and m-indices; number of publications where faculty member was listed as first, last, or sole author; whether a woman was listed as one of the first five coauthors; and year of first publication were retrieved from Scopus. Publication metrics were compared between genders using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and χ2 tests. ResultsA total of 711 faculty members (519 male, 192 [27%] female members) were identified. Male faculty had a significantly higher number of total publications (median 54 versus 24, P < .0001), publications per year (median 2.9 versus 1.6, P < .0001), and h- (median 17 versus 10, P < .0001) and m-indices (median 0.83 versus 0.60, P < .0001) than female faculty. Male faculty had a significantly higher percentage of single author (median 1% versus 0%, P = .0014) and last author (median 16% versus 11%, P < .0001) publications than female faculty. Female faculty had a significantly higher percentage of first author publications (21% versus 17%, P = .0025) and were significantly more likely to have another woman in their first five coauthor list (70% versus 45%, P < .0001) than male faculty. ConclusionsLarge differences exist between female and male faculty in total publications; h- and m-indices; publications per year; number of first, single, last author papers; and percentage of faculty that have a female coauthor in their top five coauthor lists.

English

This descriptive cross-sectional survey examined faculty publication productivity at Jigjiga University, Ethiopia. It, specifically, aimed at exploring the factors and barriers that may influence publication productivity among academic staffs while also comparing variations across academic disciplines. The survey employed self-administered questionnaire distributed to 120 faculties randomly selected from nine academic disciplines during February to April 2016. This observation indicated that only 38.3% of the academic faculty members have published a research work since joining Jigjiga University. Publication of journal articles was the predominant type of publication outlet (58.7%) followed by conference proceedings (13%). The analysis result indicated that there was statistically significant (p 0.05) in publication productivity in relation to sex, age, teaching load and involvement in administrative activities. In addition, significant variation (p<0.05) existed on publication productivity across academic disciplines. Faculties in the natural and life science fields generally appeared to publish more than those in the social sciences. Respondents cited several factors that can be implicated in the low prevalence of publication productivity at Jigjiga University. The most cited barriers in order of higher frequency include lack of recognition such as promotion, absence of institutional research journal, poor access to information sources such as internet connectivity, insufficient research facilities, lack of financial incentives, lack of institutional/department support on publication, high publication charges inquired by journals, and poor research and publication atmosphere which were agreed upon by about 75% of the respondents. Most of these obstacles were organizational in nature, and thus focus to improve research productivity should consider tackling these factors at institutional level. Therefore, results of this survey imply that understanding these inhibitory factors and designing appropriate intervention strategy may help Jigjiga University towards improving the research and publication productivity of its academic faculty members. Key words: Publication, productivity, research, faculty, academics, Jigjiga University.

Personal strategic alliances: enhancing the scientific and technological contributions of university faculty in Malaysia

Scientific and technological human capital is a critical element for the economic and social advancement of countries in the developing world. Using Malaysia as an example, this paper examines the relationship between the research productivity of university faculty and human capital development with a specific focus on personal strategic alliances. The results show that educational attainment, location at a designated research university, and consulting experience positively influence faculty publication productivity. Furthermore, alliances established through consulting, applied research, and entrepreneurial experiences are critical for the development of new technologies stemming from university research. Malaysia's experience may hold lessons for developing countries: the full development potential of human capital investments may only be realized by simultaneously strengthening and supporting personal strategic alliances with communities outside academia.

Publication Productivity of Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University Indexed in PubMed.

Background:Analysis of PubMed publications as an indicator of the research productivity of individual countries, regions, or institutions has recently become a field of interest.Aim:The aim was to assess the past trends in PubMed-indexed medical publications from Mansoura Faculty of Medicine and to have an idea about the current situation in medical research.Materials and Methods:PubMed was searched for publications affiliated to Mansoura from the end of the calendar year 2012 and earlier.Results:Of 2798 papers related to Mansoura, 1756 publications were included in the analysis, and 1042 publications were excluded (false positives). The highest number of publications was in 2011 (10.6%, 187/1756) followed by 2012 (10.2%, 179/1756). There was an increase of the publication rate over 5-years period until it reaches 47.0% (826/1756) during the period from 2008 to 2012. The main high-producing department was Urology and Nephrology, which accounted for 35.9% (631/1756) of the total publications followed by Pediatrics and Parasitology. The median number of authors participated in the researches was four ranging from 1 to 23. Most of the publications were in the form of intervention/clinical trials (38.4%, 662/1756) followed by descriptive/cross-sectional study (38.3%, 659/1756). The median of the impact factor was 1.99 ranging from 0.27 to 53.3.Conclusion:The publication productivity of Mansoura Faculty of Medicine showed fluctuating pattern from the end of the calendar year 2012 and earlier. Future prospects for increasing research productivity should be considered to increase the number and quality of publications and academic staff participating in high-quality international researches.

Author affiliation in supply chain management and logistics journals: 2008‐2010

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to extend a series of studies dating back to 1967 that evaluates faculty publication productivity in refereed supply chain management and logistics journals.

Transformational Leadership: Operating in an Abundant State of Mind by Capitalizing on Tangible and Intangible Resources

Becoming an effective and well rounded leader in academia often requires proficiency in the threecritical components of an academic career: scholarship, service, and teaching. However, the emergingfocus on faculty scholarship as the most salient of these elements, particularly as evidenced throughpublication in academic journals for graduate faculties, has been well documented in research (Green,2005; Green &amp; Baskind, 2007). While the relative weighting and importance of scholarship issomewhat inconsistent across universities, disciplines, and faculty rank (Green, 2008; Price &amp; Cotton,2006), the publication productivity of faculty is the major correlate for graduate program rankings fromthe U.S. News and World Report and many graduate school deans consider it the "central criterion" forpromotion and tenure decisions (Green &amp; Baskind, 2007, p.282).

Rehabilitation Tenure Track Faculty Publication Productivity

Rehabilitation Tenure Track Faculty Publication Productivity

Rehabilitation Tenure Track Faculty Publication Productivity

A study of rehabilitation educators was conducted to ascertain their publication productivity, defined as number of published refereed journal articles. Participants included 93 faculty members representing 57 rehabilitation education programs. The mean number of total published refereed journal articles over a career was 27.97 for the entire group, 12.61 for assistant professors, 21.33 for associate professors, and 39.76 for full professors. The annual on average publication rate was 2.35 for the entire group, 4.37 for assistant professors, 1.85 for associate professors, and 1.86 for full professors. Rehabilitation educators may use this information to set personal publication goals. Administrators may use this information to evaluate and mentor faculty.

Faculty publication productivity, collaboration, and grants velocity: using curricula vitae to compare center-affiliated and unaffiliated scientists

We examine the effect of a Congressionally mandated multidisciplinary center program on the careers of affiliated scientists. Important to the research evaluation design, we incorporate a control group of researchers who are not affiliated with these centers. We collect curricula vitae from both groups, a data source that has been demonstrated to provide valid and reliable longitudinal data about academic productivity. We evaluate the impact of center affiliation on publication productivity, collaboration, and grants activity. We find that center affiliation tends to promote lower grant velocity, but greater levels of collaboration. These higher levels of collaboration increase publication productivity, but gains may be offset by the lower grants velocity. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Developing benchmarks for evaluating publication records at doctoral programs in accounting

Abstract This paper summarizes the publication productivity of 87 accounting doctoral programs in two subsets of the 30 highest-rated academic accounting journals over five years (1992–1996). Three measures are developed as surrogates for the quality, breadth, and depth of the aggregate publication productivity of faculty in each program. Results indicate that the three indices are measuring different dimensions of scholarly productivity. Accounting program administrators should find the results useful for establishing benchmarks for scholarly activity needed for, among other purposes, AACSB accreditation.

Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis

This study is a cross-national empirical analysis ofthe correlates of faculty publication productivity ina ten-country sample. The countries included in thestudy are as follows: Australia, Brazil, Chile, HongKong, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States. Publicationproductivity was measured as number of articlespublished over a three-year period. By reviewing thefindings of related literature on the professoriate inthe developed world, the study seeks to determine theextent to which these hold for less developed academicsystems as well, and more broadly, to identifysimilarities and differences in the patterns ofpublication productivity across the examined nations.The statistical analyses conducted for each countryreveal differences that clearly challenge theunqualified application of established researchproductivity models to other national contexts.

An analysis of the authorship of international accounting research in U.S. journals and AOS: 1980 through 1996

We analyze the international accounting research published in 30 U.S. academic journals and Accounting Organizations and Society ( AOS) from 1980 to 1996 to provide strategies for those interested in pursuing academic careers in international accounting. We focus on the relationship between the most prolific authors and their academic environment. Our findings show that the set of authors and schools of the most prolific authors in international accounting in the U.S. are not the same as the set of the most prolific authors and schools of AOS. Neither the international accounting authors nor their academic affiliations were dominated by U.S. or U.K. academic institutions. The authors in international accounting were promoted within and between schools and many were full professors with professorships. The dominant research methods used and topics researched in AOS were different from those of U.S. journals. Young faculty should develop their career objective and align their employment and publication goals accordingly because they have a broad selection of mentors, universities and journals for which to target their research. Aligning research interests with academic environment choices should maximize an international accounting faculty's publication productivity and academic rank.

Faculty productivity and the complexity of student exam questions

AbstractThe relationship between faculty publication productivity and the cognitive complexity of student examination questions is examined. Results show that scholars who publish books and those who publish fewer articles ask more critical‐thinking questions. Publishing more articles seems to negatively influence the asking of such questions.

Using faculty publication rates for comparing ?peer? institutions

This paper reports the results of a study of faculty publication productivity at five major research universities. Data on publication rates were gathered for two years from theCorporate Indexes published by the Institute for Scientific Information, while numbers of faculty by academic discipline were computed using standard reports generated annually by the participating universities. The primary conclusion drawn from the study is that institutional publication rates can be estimated from references in theCorporate Indexes and provide one, albeit imperfect, measure of relative university research productivity.

Correlates of university nurse faculty publication productivity.

The purpose of this study was to identify factors which may be important in the publication productivity of university nurse faculty. Two central research questions were addressed: 1) What relationship exists between selected professional, educational, and career variables and the publication productivity of university nurse faculty members? 2) What is the typical publication productivity profile of university nurse faculty? The population consisted of 422 full-time tenure tract nurse faculty teaching in seven nursing schools that offered baccalaureate, master's and doctoral programs and were located in public Research Universities I. All data were obtained through the use of a questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were received from 80 percent of the respondents. Faculty not meeting the criteria for the study and all instructors were eliminated from analysis. Data were ultimately analyzed for 261 subjects. Thirty-two variables were found to have a significant relationship to faculty publication productivity. Eleven of these variables (highest degree, years since first master's, age, rank, teaching responsibilities, time spent teaching, time spent in research, hours of clinical instruction, teaching and research preferences, journals received, beliefs about the desirable relationship between publication and promotion and tenure) and five motivational variables were included in a regression analysis. These 16 variables grouped into three clusters, accounted for .4845 percent of the total variation in university nurse faculty publication productivity. Current job socialization factors and motivational factors accounted for a significant amount of variation in faculty publication productivity even when highest degree, years since first master's, age, and rank were controlled.