Institutional Research Productivity Research Articles

An analysis of bibliometric indicators, National Institutes of Health funding, and faculty size at Association of American Medical Colleges medical schools, 1997–2007

The objective of this study was to analyze bibliometric data from ISI, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funding data, and faculty size information for Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member schools during 1997 to 2007 to assess research productivity and impact. This study gathered and synthesized 10 metrics for almost all AAMC medical schools(n=123): (1) total number of published articles per medical school, (2) total number of citations to published articles per medical school, (3) average number of citations per article, (4) institutional impact indices, (5) institutional percentages of articles with zero citations, (6) annual average number of faculty per medical school, (7) total amount of NIH funding per medical school, (8) average amount of NIH grant money awarded per faculty member, (9) average number of articles per faculty member, and (10)average number of citations per faculty member. Using principal components analysis, the author calculated the relationships between measures, if they existed. Principal components analysis revealed 3 major clusters of variables that accounted for 91% of the total variance: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3)individual faculty research productivity. Depending on the variables in each cluster, medical school research may be appropriately evaluated in a more nuanced way. Significant correlations exist between extracted factors, indicating an interrelatedness of all variables. Total NIH funding may relate more strongly to the quality of the research than the quantity of the research. The elimination of medical schools with outliers in 1 or more indicators (n=20)altered the analysis considerably. Though popular, ordinal rankings cannot adequately describe the multidimensional nature of a medical school's research productivity and impact. This study provides statistics that can be used in conjunction with other sound methodologies to provide a more authentic view of a medical school's research. The large variance of the collected data suggests that refining bibliometric data by discipline, peer groups, or journal information may provide a more precise assessment.

Institutional and Individual Research Productivity in Five Nominated Multicultural Psychology Journals

Research productivity was examined across 5 highly nominated multicultural psychology journals. This yielded a ranking of 40 highly productive institutions and individuals between 1994 and 2007. The results are potentially useful in beginning to track trends in the publication of multicultural psychology studies in research journals. Methodological and interpretational limitations are discussed.Se examinó la productividad de las investigaciones publicadas en 5 renombradas revistas de psicología multicultural. Esto dio como resultado un ranking de 40 instituciones e individuos altamente productivos entre 1994 y 2007. Los resultados son potencialmente útiles para empezar a rastrear tendencias en la publicación de estudios de psicología multicultural en revistas de investigación. También se discuten las limitaciones metodológicas y de interpretación.

Malmquist index analysis of the dynamic changes in scientific research productivity of some Chinese universities before and after merger

This paper describes the dynamic changes in research productivity of Chinese higher education institutions (HEIs) before and after merger with Malmquist index, and decomposes the total factor productivity change index into catching-up effect, scale effect and frontier-shift effect. The main finding is that technological improvement and innovation are important factors to improve scientific research productivity of Chinese HEIs.

Institutional Research Productivity in Science Education for the 1990s: Top 30 Rankings

The purpose of this study was to identify the major science education programs in the United States, where the science education researchers published their research. This research is the first study of the scholarly productivity of science education programs at domestic institutions of higher education. Each issue of the eight research journals (Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Science Teacher Education, School Science and Mathematics, Journal of Computers in Math and Science Teaching, Journal of Science Education and Technology, and Journal of Elementary Science Education) published in the 1990s provided the author(s) and their institutional affiliation. The resultant ranking of raw and weighted counts for the top 30 science educations programs shows variation in journals where research was published. Overall, regardless whether the total number of publications (raw) or weighted rating there was 90% agreement among top 10 and 70% agreement among the bottom 10. Potential explanations for variations and uses for rankings are discussed.

Institutional research productivity and the connection to average student quality and overall reputation

We posit that institutions of higher education attempt to maximize their reputation, and that an institution's reputation, research output, and average student quality are determined simultaneously. Because these outputs are produced jointly, three-stage least squares is used to estimate the parameters of the model. We find that faculty research productivity is positively related to reputation but negatively related to student quality at research universities, but that reputation and student quality have little impact on research productivity at liberal arts colleges.

Research Productivity in Counseling Psychology

This article is an update and review of institutional research productivity in counseling psychology. Institutional research productivity is assessed by totaling credits for articles published from 1993 to 2002 in the following journals: Journal of Counseling Psychology, The Counseling Psychologist, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Counseling and Development, Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development , and Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology . Results show that the rankings of many programs have remained fairly stable over the years, while others have substantially changed. Additionally, two factors were found to represent the research productivity of institutions in the field. These results are discussed in terms of the identity of counseling psychology and research productivity.

Institutional Research Productivity, Use of Theory-Driven Research, and Statistical Application in Counseling Psychology

The author reacts to the three core articles in the Scientific Forum of the May 2005 issue of The Counseling Psychologist about institutional research productivity, the use of theory-driven research, and the application of structural equation modeling to research in counseling psychology. To have a research base that maximizes divergent perspectives, the author argues that the literature should have a diverse group of contributors. Ideas regarding how to build theories, how to improve the precision of theories, and how to test theories in counseling psychology are discussed.

Calls for Multiple Indices Incorporating Multiculturalism in Content Analysis

This reaction evaluates three content analyses that investigated separate aspects of research articles published in major counseling psychology journals: (a) institutional research productivity, (b) use of structural equation modeling, and (c) use of theory-driven research. The evaluation focuses on the adequacy of indices used in the content analyses and implications as well as cautions in interpreting the findings. Recommendations are provided with an emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity, the core values of the field of counseling psychology.

Who Defines What Is Valued in Counseling Psychology? Reply to the Four Reactions

The four reviews of the state of the counseling psychology research base in the May 2005 issue of The Counseling Psychologist provide thought-provoking critiques of institutional research productivity. In this rejoinder to these critiques, the authors frame their responses in terms of explaining methodological issues in the original study, discussing the intended use and interpretation of their findings, exploring perceived schisms and values of the field, and offering suggestions for future research and discussion.

Trends and shifts in institutional productivity: natural products chemistry research in Sri Lanka

A bibliometric analysis of institutional research productivity in nine Sri Lankan research laboratories in the field of natural products chemistry showed a conspicuous rise and fall during 1975 to 1998. One institution was the dominant contributor to this. Scientific impact resulting from intra-departmental collaboration was as strong as that from international collaboration. Changes in the working conditions as well as growing disparities in research environments resulted in a productivity transposition within a set cultural landscape. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The connection between the research of a university and counts of links to its web pages: An investigation based upon a classification of the relationships of pages to the research of the host university

AbstractResults from recent advances in link metrics have demonstrated that the hyperlink structure of national university systems can be strongly related to the research productivity of the individual institutions. This paper uses a page categorization to show that restricting the metrics to subsets more closely related to the research of the host university can produce even stronger associations. A partial overlap was also found between the effects of applying advanced document models and separating page types, but the best results were achieved through a combination of the two.

Web use and peer interconnectivity metrics for academic web sites

This paper introduces two new web link count metrics to complement the existing Web Impact Factor. The first is provisionally cast as an indicator of the average degree of online informal scholarly communication and information use by the academics in a given university. The second has a similar construction but focuses on the degree of web interconnection in terms of both inlinks and outlinks. The latter metric is based upon a more elaborate mechanism than raw link counts: totalling the minimum number of links between universities over all distinct pairs in the chosen set that include the given institution. Statistical tests give evidence that the results of both correlate with institutional research productivity in the UK, providing preliminary support for their continued development. Further research is needed into causes of linking in order to allow more meaningful interpretations of their values to be made.

PROLIFIC AUTHORS OF ACCOUNTING LITERATURE

Measurement of the research productivity of accounting faculty continues to evolve. Many studies on accounting research focused on measuring the perceived quality of accounting and related journals, or measured the research productivity of a limited number of journals or on the research productivity of a limited number faculty. Other studies measured the accounting research productivity of academic institutions and doctoral programs and the effects of research on perceptions about institutions and programs. Finally, some studies measured limited topics such as the productivity of female faculty and the effects on research on perceptions of institutions. In recent years, comprehensive databases on both accounting faculty and publications in accounting and related journals have provided an opportunity to study research productivity on a broader scale. These databases allowed the development of benchmarks for research productivity by years of experience and by journal quality. In developing these benchmarks, the publication records of individual faculty were unreported. We analyzed 40 journals for the 35-year period 1967–2001 and identified the most prolific authors and their productivity records. The top 10 researchers based on number of publications in the 40 journals were identified by year of doctoral graduation for the 30-year period 1968–1997. Analyzing all U.S. faculty holding the rank of Assistant Professor and above for the academic year 2001–2002 by the number of publications, we listed the top 75 academic researchers in the 40 journals, including category of publication. Finally, an analysis was made of publication records in ten premier accounting journals.

Research and development in technikons: lacunae and challenges

This article is underpinned by the current changes in the South African Higher Education environment and its impact on research within the Technikon sector. It is based on a case study of the M.L. Sultan Technikon (which has subsequently merged with Natal Technikon in April 2002 to form the Durban Institute of Technology). Instruments used include the weighted publication index for 2001 by amount of research activity and a survey of the structural and personal factors related to institutional research productivity. The rationale for the article is the growing sense of disillusionment among academic staff at previously disadvantaged Technikons that have a legacy of poor governance and research capacity. Also, standards of research and teaching have come under increasingly close examination as can be seen with the release of the New Academic Policy for Higher Education. Evidence from parallel investigations in the UK (Bassey 1995) and Australia (Ramsden 1998) point to the crucial role of academic leadership at management level in maintaining morale, enhancing productivity and increasing research output. The key recommendation of the article points toward a change in the dichotomous model of Technikon work (teaching versus research, practice versus theory) to continuous ones. More important to the Arts and Humanities is the need to devise appropriate measures of the range of scholarly outputs. (South African Journal of Higher Education: 2003 17 (1): 9-15)

Conceptualizing documentation on the Web: An evaluation of different heuristic‐based models for counting links between university Web sites

AbstractAll known previous Web link studies have used the Web page as the primary indivisible source document for counting purposes. Arguments are presented to explain why this is not necessarily optimal and why other alternatives have the potential to produce better results. This is despite the fact that individual Web files are often the only choice if search engines are used for raw data and are the easiest basic Web unit to identify. The central issue is of defining the Web “document”: that which should comprise the single indissoluble unit of coherent material. Three alternative heuristics are defined for the educational arena based upon the directory, the domain and the whole university site. These are then compared by implementing them on a set of 108 UK university institutional Web sites under the assumption that a more effective heuristic will tend to produce results that correlate more highly with institutional research productivity. It was discovered that the domain and directory models were able to successfully reduce the impact of anomalous linking behavior between pairs of Web sites, with the latter being the method of choice. Reasons are then given as to why a document model on its own cannot eliminate all anomalies in Web linking behavior. Finally, the results from all models give a clear confirmation of the very strong association between the research productivity of a UK university and the number of incoming links from its peers' Web sites.

Geographical distribution of publications in the field of medical education.

BackgroundThe geographical distribution of publications as an indicator of the research productivity of individual countries, regions or institutions has become a field of interest. We investigated the geographical distribution of contributions to the two leading journals in the field of medical education, Academic Medicine and Medical Education.MethodsPubMed was used to search Medline. For both journals all journal articles in each year from 1995 to 2000 were included into the study. Then the affiliation was retrieved from the affiliation field of the MEDLINE format. If this was not possible, it was obtained from the paper version of the journal.ResultsAcademic Medicine published contributions from 25 countries between 1995 and 2000. Authors from 50 countries contributed to Medical Education in the same period of time. Authors from the USA and Canada wrote ca. 95% off all articles in Academic Medicine, whereas authors from the UK, Australia, the USA, Canada and the Netherlands were responsible for ca. 74% of all articles in Medical Education in the investigated period of time.ConclusionsWhile many countries contributed to both journals, only a few of them were responsible for the majority of all articles.

An empirical assessment of institutional and individual research productivity in international operations management

Assesses institutional and individual research productivity in the area of international operations management (IOM) by reviewing publications in 21 leading operations management (OM) journals over the 12‐year period from 1986 through 1997. Also assesses the IOM research output of the journals and the relative contributions of academicians and practitioners to IOM research appearing in these journals. Among the journals examined for the 12‐year period of this study, based on annual output and quality of published IOM research, Production and Operations Management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, and European Journal of Operational Research served as the leading outlets for IOM research. The 21 journals published a total of 550 IOM articles over the 12‐year period with academicians authoring approximately 86 percent and practitioners 14 percent of this IOM research. The study provides insights on the IOM research productivity and quality of institutions and individuals and offers suggestions for furthering the cause of IOM research.

An analysis of the research productivity of AIS faculty

During the past 25 years, a number of articles have examined the accounting research productivity of individual faculty members and institutions. Many articles have focused on the quantity of publications, with a few incorporating a quality measurement component. Concurrently, other research efforts have examined the quality of the journals that are considered to be potential outlets for a broad, cross-section of accounting academics. These studies, taken as a whole, have provided valuable insights into the research productivity across the domain of accounting academics. The purpose of this paper is to examine research in the subdiscipline of AIS, from both a quantity and quality perspective and evaluate both institutional productivity and individual faculty productivity. Information from all AIS research published from 1982 through 1998 in 45 accounting and information systems journals was collected and analyzed. Using this data, we show which journals are considered the highest quality outlets for AIS publications, which faculty have published the most AIS research, which employing institutions are rated highest in AIS research productivity and which doctoral granting institutions are rated the highest for AIS research productivity. The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of the AIS research domain and to accounting by providing valuable insights into the quality of AIS research.

Institutional and Individual Research Productivity: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches

Given the interest in productivity and rankings of institutions and individuals in the marketing discipline, the importance of the method used for determining these rankings has been underemphasized. This article provides an overview of individual and institutional research productivity using four methods and reveals the impact of each method on relative rankings. Individual and institutional publication productivity in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research and Marketing Science from 1987 through 1996 are assessed. Publication productivity is reported by institution, author and positional rank.

Publication Productivity in the Three Leading U.S. Advertising Journals: 1989 through 1996

Periodic scanning of research productivity within a discipline is necessary to effectively measure the relative contribution of individual authors and institutions. This review extends Barry's 1990 work and examines refereed articles in the three primary U.S. advertising specialty journals—Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, and Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising—for the period 1989 through 1996. The findings indicate a significant shift in individual and institutional rankings. Given recent pressures on academic institutions to show concrete evidence of performance, the findings provide a useful benchmark of individual and institutional research productivity within the three outlets.