Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs

Libraries Faculty and Staff choS larship and Research Purdue

1-1-2014 Core Journals in and : Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals Judith M. Nixon Purdue University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs Part of the Library and Information Science Commons

Recommended Citation Nixon, Judith M., "Core Journals in Library and Information Science: Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals" (2014). Libraries Faculty and Staff Scholarship and Research. Paper 61. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs/61

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Core Journals in Library and Information Science: Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals

Judith M. Nixon

In the field, there is no professionally accepted tiered list of journals in the United States to guide , as there is in other academic disciplines. This situation creates a challenge for both new and experienced librarians who wish to make a serious contribution to librarianship by publishing articles. This article outlines a methodology used at the Libraries of Purdue University, which could be adapted by other university libraries, to create a tiered list of journals tailored to the institution. The article begins with a literature review that identifies a short list of top-level journals. This is followed by the methodology that uses expert opinion surveys, acceptance and circulation rates, impact factors, h-indexes, and journals with local faculty articles. Tables with the journals ranked into three tiers are included.

Background and Reasons for major journals in the field.1 The advice ap- Compiling a Tiered List of LIS plies to all -authors at all stages Journals of the career. Submitting to peer-reviewed In library and information science (LIS) journals is a well-recognized step; how- there is no professionally accepted ever, with over 250 refereed LIS journals, tiered or ranked list of journals in the identifying one is problematic. A tiered United States. This creates a dilemma for list of journals would provide guidance librarian-authors who wish to expand for both the faculty member preparing for the literature in librarianship, write promotion and the committees evaluating about successful programs, or report the portfolio. on research findings. Every librarian- At Purdue University, as at most uni- author faces the question of where to versities, promotion and tenure decisions submit the manuscript. The choice can go through three committees. The first have significant consequences on how committee’s membership is all associate many librarians will read it, how often and full professors in the library; the the article will be cited, and the impact second and third committees have some or influence it will have. This dilemma nonlibrarian full professor members. is especially critical for those in faculty A tiered list of journals would provide status positions seeking promotion and guidance for the second and third review tenure, as they are advised to have a committees, wherein most members are steady flow of refereed articles in the unfamiliar with the journal literature of

Judith M. Nixon is Professor in the Humanities, Social Science and Education Library at Purdue University; e-mail: [email protected]. © 2014 Judith M. Nixon, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC 66 crl12-387 Core Journals in Library and Information Science 67 the library science field. As a matter of that are not peer-reviewed, and 15 titles fact, the needs of the second and third in tier two was accepted by the Purdue promotion review committees provided University Library faculty and referred the initial impetus at Purdue Libraries to to the full professor subcommittee of the compile the list. Purdue Libraries Primary Promotion and A list of top-tiered journals would en- Tenure Committee. Sixty-seven titles in courage librarians to match articles to the tier one seemed like an overwhelming journals level. Beginning authors might number, especially since it included some avoid rejection from a top-tiered journal non–peer-reviewed titles. There were by submitting to a middle-level journals, serious questions about whether such a as these journals are less competitive and long list would be helpful to untenured often do not require research articles. faculty members. As one of the full pro- Editors of these journals frequently fessors, I accepted the challenge to see have the time to work more closely with if some method could be developed to authors to develop a publishable article. divide the list. Experienced librarian-authors writing full-fledged research articles could use Literature Review the list to identify top-level journals and In the literature on this topic, eight ar- different journals than where they have ticles stand out: an expert opinion study published in the past. As the writer be- by David Kohl and Charles Davis,3 two comes familiar with the style and scope replications,4 and five journal citation of specific journals and is encouraged studies. Three citations studies were done by past successes with submissions, it is in the 1990s: one by Mary Kim,5 a second normal and natural to favor these. How- by John M. Budd, 6 and third by Belen ever, in some cases these journals tend to Altuna Esteibar and F.W. Lancaster.7 Two be mid-level journals. A ranked or tiered additional citation studies were published list would encourage librarians to submit in 2007, bringing the research into the cur- to higher-ranked journals. rent decade: one by Kelly Blessinger and In Australia the professional associa- Michele Frasier8 and a second by Barbara tion has developed a tiered list.2 However, Via and Deborah Schmidle.9 A review of in the United States, no association has the findings of these articles and a merged been willing to take on the responsibility list of the top ten journals in each study of developing a methodology or compil- produced a list of top-tier journals. In ad- ing such a list. This motivated the library dition, the literature review identified the faculty at Purdue University Libraries to methods used that served as guidance for compile a tiered list of journals to be used the creation of the criteria. internally as a guide for our faculty mem- bers and promotion review committees. “Expert Opinion” or Perception Surveys This effort led to the idea of developing The David Kohl and Charles Davis arti- criteria to identify a list of tiered journals cle,10 “Ratings of Journals by ARL Library and to update it annually. The purpose of Directors and Deans of Library and Infor- this article is to share our methodology mation Science Schools,” has been heavily and the resulting tiered list of journals cited and replicated twice. This study with other librarians, especially those asked the deans of American Library with faculty status. Probably no two Association–accredited library schools university committees would agree on (referred to as “deans” throughout the the list, so the final list given here is not present article) and the directors of As- as important as the methodology, which sociation of Research Libraries (referred could be adapted for use elsewhere. to as “directors”) to rate 31 core journals A preliminary tiered list of journals on a scale of 1–5 (Likert scale). To do this with 67 titles in tier one, including a few study, Kohl and Davis had to provide a 68 College & Research Libraries January 2014 list of LIS journals. Their list constituted 9. Library Resources and Technical a revision of Jesse Shera’s “hard-core of Services library literature” published in his 1976 10. Library Trends book Introduction to Library Science.11 Kohl 11. RQ (title changed to Reference & and Davis found a hierarchy and agree- User Services Quarterly) ment between the deans’ and directors’ 12. Special Libraries rankings on two-thirds of the journals. Two replications followed the Kohl- When the top ten choices of both the Davis study during the following twenty directors and the deans were compared, years. In 1995, Virgil Blake13 replicated six titles appeared on both lists. In alpha- the 1985 study. When the top ten journals betical order, they are College & Research from the directors and the deans, 13 titles, Libraries, Information Technology and were compared to the top ten choices in Libraries, Journal of the American Society the 1985 study, 11 titles overlapped. The for Information Science (title changed to two new titles were The Chronicle of Higher Journal of the American Society for Infor- Education and Journal of Documentation. mation Science and Technology (JASIST)), Since the Chronicle is not a LIS journal, Library Quarterly, Library Resources and Blake only added one new title for consid- Technical Services, and Library Trends. The eration to the top journal list. (See table 1 directors added American Libraries, Journal for the rank of each title in the Blake study of Academic Librarianship, Library Journal and all other studies.) In 2005, the Kohl- and RQ (title changed to Reference & User Davis study was replicated again, this Services Quarterly). The deans included time by Thomas Nisonger and Charles Drexel Library Quarterly (now ceased), Davis. Combining the top ten choices of Journal of Education for Librarianship, the deans and directors produced a list Library and Information Science Research, of 14 titles. Four new titles appeared; and Special Libraries.12 A list of the top however, two of the new titles are not twelve titles selected by the directors truly journals and so were omitted from and deans constituted a working list of consideration. The two Nisonger and top-ranking journals. (In this list American Davis added were Information Processing Libraries was not included as it is not peer- and Management and Library Collection, Ac- reviewed, and Drexel Library Quarterly quisition, & Technical Services. (See table 1.) was removed as it ceased in 1986). These Although there were differences in the titles, listed in alphabetical order, were ranks assigned to the journals by each then compared with the top titles in the group and each group had some unique other major articles. titles high on their list, a list of top jour- Top Journals from the Kohl-Davis nals was evident. Titles that appeared on Study: all three lists include College & Research 1. College & Research Libraries Libraries, Information Technology and Li- 2. Information Technology and Libraries braries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 3. Journal of Academic Librarianship Journal of the American Society for Informa- 4. Journal of Education for Librarian- tion Science (title changed to Journal of the ship American Society for Information Science and 5. Journal of the American Society for Technology (JASIST)), Library & Information Information Science (title changed Science Research, Library Quarterly, Library to Journal of the American Society for Resources and Technical Services, Library Information Science and Technology Trends, and RQ (title changed to Reference (JASIST)) & User Services Quarterly). Titles that ap- 6. Library and Information Science peared on two of the lists include Journal Research of Documentation, Journal of Education for 7. Library Journal Library & Information Science, and Library 8. Library Quarterly Journal. This list only differed from the Core Journals in Library and Information Science 69 1 2 1 1 1 5 7 7 5 1 as Top 10 Title as Top Journal is Listed Number of Times Number of Times 2005 f 3 9 7 7 5 1 Deans Nisonger- Davis

e 8 1 3 7 10 2005 Davis Directors Nisonger- 1995 d 5

7 6 1 10 Deans Blake 1995 c 1 7 2 5 10 Directors Blake TABLE 1 TABLE

b 3 7 9 5 2 Kohl- Davis 1985 Deans Row one has a brief author reference.

a 9 1 6 3 7 Brief citations to each study are in the table’s footnotes Brief citations to each study are in the table’s 1985 Kohl- Davis Directors Numbers in columns 2-7 are the rank for each title from study. Journals Ranked as Top 10 Titles in the Expert Opinion Studies Discussed Titles 10 Top Journals Ranked as American Libraries Annual Review of Information Science and Information Science of Review Annual (ARIST) Technology ASIST Proceedings ASIST Chronicle of Higher Education Chronicle Drexel Library Quarterly Drexel College & Research Libraries College & Research Information Processing and Management Information Processing Information Technology and Libraries Information Technology Journal of Academic Librarianship Journal of Journal of Education for Librarian and Information Science. Formerly (until 1984): Journal of Education for Librarianship Journal of Documentation Journal of the American Society for Journal of the Information Science (title changed to American Society for Information [JASIST] Journal ) Science and Technology. 70 College & Research Libraries January 2014 3 2 6 5 6 5 1 as Top 10 Title as Top Journal is Listed Number of Times Number of Times 2005 f 3 1 6 10 Deans Nisonger- Davis

e 9 4 6 2 5 2005 Davis Directors Nisonger- 1995 d 3 2 4 8 9 Deans Blake 1995 c 9 6 4 3 8 Directors Blake TABLE 1 TABLE

b 1 6 4 8 10 Kohl- Davis 1985 Deans Row one has a brief author reference.

a 8 2 4 5 Brief citations to each study are in the table’s footnotes Brief citations to each study are in the table’s 10 1985 Kohl- Davis Directors Numbers in columns 2-7 are the rank for each title from study. Journals Ranked as Top 10 Titles in the Expert Opinion Studies Discussed Titles 10 Top Journals Ranked as Library Coll. Acq. & Tech Services Acq. & Tech Library Coll. Library & Information Science Research, Library Journal Library Quarterly Library Resources and Technical Services and Technical Library Resources Library Trends RQ (title changed to Reference & User RQ (title changed to Reference Services Quarterly) Special Libraries a. Kohl and Davis, “Ratings of journals by ARL library directors and deans of library and information science schools,” Table 1: 42-43. Table library directors and deans of information science schools,” ARL a. Kohl and Davis, “Ratings of journals by 1: 42-43. Table library directors and deans of information science schools,” ARL b. Kohl and Davis, “Ratings of journals by 2, 163. Table replication of the Kohl-Davis study,” A c. Blake, “The perceived prestige of professional journals, 1995: 3, 163-64. Table replication of the Kohl-Davis study,” A d. Blake, “The perceived prestige of professional journals, 1995: Replication A Library Directors: ARL e. Nisonger and Davis, “The Perception of Library Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans 1, 346-49. Table of the Kohl–Davis Study,” Replication of A Library Directors: ARL f. Nisonger and Davis, “The Perception of Library Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans 1, 346-49. Table the Kohl–Davis Study,” Core Journals in Library and Information Science 71

Kohl-Davis list by changing two titles: core of top journals that overlapped well Special Libraries was omitted and Journal with the core listings of the directors and of Documentation was added. (See table deans for a similar time period.”17 Of the 1 for ranks of the top ten titles in each top ten titles identified in this study, nine study.) In sum, the top journals identified were on our top twelve title list, and the in the three expert opinion surveys, in only title not on this list was American alphabetical order, were: Libraries, which had been identified in 1. College & Research Libraries Kohl-Davis but is not peer-reviewed. 2. Information Technology and Libraries Clearly, the titles that emerged from this 3. Journal of Academic Librarianship citation study overlapped with the expert 4. Journal of Documentation opinion studies. (See table 2 for titles and 5. Journal of Education for Library & ranks of the citation studies.) Information Science Two important citation studies fol- 6. Journal of the American Society for lowed shortly after Kim’s study. In 1991 Information Science (title changed John M. Budd analyzed 328 articles in- to Journal of the American Society for dexed in the ERIC database with the major Information Science and Technology descriptor “Academic Libraries” between (JASIST)) 1984–88.18 He identified 40 library– or 7. Library & Information Science Re- information science–related journals and search listed the most frequently cited journals. 8. Library Journal Comparing the top ten in his list with top 9. Library Quarterly 12 titles identified by the expert opinion 10. Library Resources and Technical studies, seven titles overlap. Two of the Services three new titles identified in his study 11. Library Trends are not peer-reviewed: College & Research 12. RQ (title changed to Reference & Libraries News and American Libraries. His User Services Quarterly) study added one peer-reviewed title not mentioned in the other citation analysis Citation Studies articles, Special Libraries. However, this Since all the studies discussed above are title was identified in the expert opinion expert opinion rankings and, therefore, articles as a top journal and so was not a subjective, the question arose as to wheth- new title for consideration. In 1993, anoth- er these ratings reflected the actual impor- er citation study was done by Belen Altuna tance of the journals or just “clusters of Esteibar and F.W. Lancaster. They ranked high and low prestige.”14 To investigate journals by the number of “mentions they this question, Mary Kim15 did a citation received in 131 course readings lists” at the analysis study in 1991 comparing more GSLIS at the University of Illinois Urbana- objective factors of citation-based mea- Champaign and “by the number of times sures with the rankings from Kohl-Davis. cited in doctoral dissertations and in fac- She expanded the 31-title list to include ulty publications.”19 They then weighted all English language citing and cited LIS the scores, giving more weight to faculty source journals in ® publications. The top ten journals in this and also added major journals published weighted ranking overlapped closely with by the American Library Association. The other citation studies and our list of top result was 52 journals. If a title was not journals. A peer-reviewed title that did not included in Journal Citation Reports®, the appear before in the citation studies was citations were hand-tallied. She found Information Processing and Management. that “both deans and directors assigned Another title that did not appear before higher rankings to those journals receiv- was Illinois Libraries; however it is not a ing more direct citations.”16 And that “the peer-reviewed title. (See table 2 for titles discipline citation measures identified a and ranks from the citation studies.) 72 College & Research Libraries January 2014

In 2007, two other major citation stud- 2. Information Processing and Man- ies were published. Barbara Via’s and agement Deborah Schmidle’s20 goal was to measure 3. Information Technology and Libraries return-on-investment of LIS journals 4. Journal of Academic Librarianship using citation analysis. To do this, they 5. Journal of Documentation measured “the frequency with which 6. Journal of the American Society for individual library journals are cited in the Information Science (title changed bibliographies of a core group of Library to Journal of the American Society for and Information Science journals that, Information Science and Technology arguably, comprise the premier journals (JASIST)) in the Library and Information Science 7. Library & Information Science Re- field.”21 The core journals were chosen search from the top titles in both the deans’ and 8. Library Journal directors’ list in the Nisonger-Davis study. 9. Library Quarterly Through this method they identified 19 10. Library Resources and Technical journals that were cited 100 times or more. Services The top ten journals (those referenced 11. Library Trends 245+ times) overlapped closely with our 12. RQ (title changed to Reference & top 12 journals identified in the expert User Services Quarterly) opinion studies. This study added Infor- The first result of the literature review mation Processing and Management, which of the citation studies was that the expert had also been identified by the deans in opinion studies are accurate and useful the 2005 Nisonger-Davis study, and Jour- in identifying top journals. Second, it nal of Information Science, which was not provided an additional title for the top- identified by any of the expert opinion tier journals, Information Processing and studies, for consideration to the list of top Management, which was listed in three journals. Also in 2007 Kelly Blessinger of the citation studies. Only the Journal and Michele Frasier22 did an analysis of of Education for Library & Information Sci- ten years of library literature, from 1994 ence, which was on the list of top journals to 2004. Their study revealed areas of identified in the expert opinion surveys, concentration, frequently published sub- was not included here. Third, this lit- jects, and characteristics of the top-cited erature review showed that the most authors and resources. Journal Citation frequent methods for compiling a list Reports® was used to determine the 28 of top journals are to survey the experts journals of high repute for the study. and to use citation studies. In addition, However, like the Via-Schmidle article, an overall result of the literature search this study also was useful in the quest for was recognition that there are journals the top journals, as one of the results was in the field that are prestigious; a small a list of titles with over 100 citations at- number of journals are consistently listed tributed to them. The top ten titles in this on expert opinion surveys and rank high study all had over 350 citations. Like the on citation studies. Via-Schmidle and the Esteibar-Lancaster Relying on published studies has the articles, they also identified Information innate problem that they are not current. Processing and Management. (See table 2 New journals are started; older journals for titles and ranks of the top ten journals cease, change their focus, or do not retain in the citation studies.) their standards. The goal of this project Here is a merged list of the top jour- was to develop a methodology that can nals (those listed in four or more of the be used annually to identify the most expert opinion or the citation studies) in important journals in the LIS field. This alphabetical order: list of important journals should be longer 1. College & Research Libraries than the list of top journals identified in Core Journals in Library and Information Science 73 5 5 3 5 5 1 5 3 4 2 2 1 3 1 1 as Top 10 Title as Top Journal is Listed Number of Times Number of Times

e 7 8 5 2 4 6 3 1 10 2007 – Frasier Blessinger Blessinger

d 5 9 2 7 8 3 1 6 4 10 2007 Via-Schmidle

c 7 8 6 2 3 9 4 1 5 10 1992 Esteibar – Esteibar Lancaster

b 8 6 5 9 2 7 1 3 1991 Budd

a TABLE 2 TABLE 4 5 2 8 9 1 6 3 7 1991 Kim Row one has a brief author reference. (title Brief citations to each study are in the table’s footnotes. Brief citations to each study are in the table’s Numbers in columns 2-6 are the rank for each title from study. Journals Ranked as Top 10 Titles in Citation Studies Discussed Titles 10 Top Journals Ranked as Library Resources and Technical Services and Technical Library Resources Library Trends Library Quarterly College & Research Libraries News (not peer reviewed) College & Research Illinois Libraries Journal of Documentation Journal of Information Science Library & Information Science Research, Library Journal American Libraries College & Research Libraries College & Research Information Processing and Management Information Processing Information Technology and Libraries Information Technology Journal of Academic Librarianship Journal of Journal of the American Society for Information Science Journal of the American Society for Information Science changed to [JASIST] Journal) and Technology. 74 College & Research Libraries January 2014

the literature review, and the method- ology would divide the journals into tiers. The next step was to develop 3 1 criteria for a tiered list.

as Top 10 Title as Top Developing Criteria for the Tiered Journal is Listed Number of Times Number of Times List

e The goal of this research project was to develop a list of top-level

9 journals divided into tiers. The list 2007 was not intended to be proscriptive; – Frasier Blessinger Blessinger rather, it would serve as a guide to

d help faculty members and promo- tion review committees identify the influential LIS journals. Tier one

2007 should include the most influen- tial journals, which we anticipated Via-Schmidle would be very similar to the titles

c identified in the expert opinion and citation studies listed above.

1992 These would be journals that library Esteibar – Esteibar Lancaster faculty members, especially more

experienced researchers, would be b encouraged to consider when sub- 4 10 1991

Budd mitting research articles. Tier two should include recognized, but less

a prestigious, journals. The tiered list TABLE 2 TABLE 10 1991 Kim could not be a comprehensive list of all acceptable journals for promo- tion, as librarians at Purdue are also encouraged to publish in journals Row one has a brief author reference. ) outside the LIS field to reach a more appropriate audience. To develop the tiered list, a set of Brief citations to each study are in the table’s footnotes. Brief citations to each study are in the table’s criteria was selected. The first crite- rion was ; both tier one

Numbers in columns 2-6 are the rank for each title from study. and tier two would be peer-reviewed

Journals Ranked as Top 10 Titles in Citation Studies Discussed Titles 10 Top Journals Ranked as titles. There are a few journals, such as Library Trends and Library Journal, of high scholarly level that are not peer-reviewed. These journals, which invite authors to write on specified topics, are considered by our pro- motion committee as of the same Reference & User Services Quarterly Reference value as peer-reviewed titles and so are included in the same category as peer-reviewed titles. In addition, as the literature review indicated, there are a few non–peer-reviewed titles that are highly recognized in the Special Libraries a. Kim, “Ranking of journals in library and information science: A comparison of perceptual and citation-based measures,” Table 1, 28. Table comparison of perceptual and citation-based measures,” A a. Kim, “Ranking of journals in library and information science: 5, 293. Table An analysis,” b. Budd, “The literature of academic libraries: 4, 7. Table “Ranking of journals in library and information science by research teaching relatedness., c. Esteibar and Lancaster., 1, 340-46. Table Citation Rankings as a Measure of Quality in Library and Information Science Journals,” Wisely: and Schmidle, “Investing Via d. 3, 163. Table “Analysis of a decade in library literature: 1994–2004,” e. Blessinger and Frasier, RQ (title changed to field and frequently cited. So a third Core Journals in Library and Information Science 75 tier was added to include the important 8. journals with an h-index above non–peer-reviewed titles, such as College 7, as calculated using Google & Research Libraries News. Scholar data After peer-reviewed status, the next Other possible criteria discussed, but criterion chosen was a high rank in a not added, were EigenfactorTM scores, jour- recent expert opinion survey. The Kohl- nals indexed in the major databases, highly Davis and Nisonger-Davis articles stood rated titles in the Via-Schmidle citation out in the literature review. These articles study, and journals. The Eigen- were cited in nearly every reference list, factorTM scores were not included because and frequently the top journals in these they are only available for journals indexed studies have been used as the “core list” in ISI’s . Since all journals for other studies. The Purdue University indexed by ISI already received one tally, Libraries Promotion & Tenure Commit- this would give favor to those journals. tee, in fact, was referencing the Nisonger- Inclusion in the major indexing/abstracting Davis list in promotion documents before tools has been used by libraries as a crite- the Faculty Affairs Committee compiled rion for journal retention. However, nearly the tiered list. Since the Nisonger-Davis every journal on the peer-reviewed list of article is the second replication, it is LIS journals is included in at least one of anticipated that it will be updated again the indexing/abstracting tools in the field, within the next five years. Therefore, so this criterion would not separate major it was identified as a major source for from lower-level journals. A high rating in selection. the Via-Schmidle study was not included Additional criteria included low accep- because it is possible to gather more cur- tance rate, high circulation rate, journals rent citation data. Giving a tally to open that Purdue University Libraries’ faculty access journals was seriously considered. members had published in more than two However, research by Jingfeng Xia23 using times in the last ten years, and two citation the h-index indicates that open access jour- ranking sources: the Institute for Scientific nals do not consistently score high. More Information’s (ISI) and the research is needed on whether open access h-index calculated from Google Scholar is a reliable criterion for quality. data. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these criteria are discussed Gathering Data on LIS Journals below. To summarize: The following steps were taken to build Essential Criteria the spreadsheet with data matching the 1. peer-reviewed (or invited) titles criteria. (See table 3 for titles and data.) in LIS field Peer-reviewed LIS journals were identi- Variable criteria (a tally was given for fied by using UlrichsWeb, which listed each of these criteria) 506 journals that met their definition of 2. expert opinion (top rating by actively published, refereed, academic/ Deans’ list in Nisonger-Davis scholarly journals published in English. 2005 study) These titles were imported into a spread- 3. expert opinion (top rating by sheet for analysis. UlrichsWeb has a sepa- Directors’ list in Nisonger-Davis rate record for every format of a journal; 2005 study) merging identical titles reduced the total 4. acceptance rate below 50 percent to 217 titles. During this import, the ISSN 5. circulation above 5,000 numbers were also gathered and used 6. journals that Purdue University for merging other data; this avoided the Libraries’ faculty members have problem of variations on titles between published in more than two times databases. An additional search was done in the last ten years in UlrichsWeb to identify the journals with 7. journals with an ISI impact factor a circulation of over 5,000. 76 College & Research Libraries January 2014 2 2 1 3 2 7 3 3 5 1 1 5 1 3 # of Tallies 6 8 4 8 5 4 7 29 16 18 17 10 14 h-index from Google from Scholar Data Scholar 1 1 4 5 4 5 4 1 10 Faculty # of Purdue Publications 0 0.6 ISI 0.489 0.683 0.129 Factor Impact in 2011 > 5,000 > 5,000 > 5,000 Circulation Circulation b n.a. n.a. 17% 65% 35% 20% 62% 17% 30% 65% 40% 30% 10% Rate Editor 35.5% Acceptance able 3: T a 1 11 22 33 16 18 Directors a Titles in Study in Alphabetical Order in Study Titles 11 35 22 21 49 Dean's No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Refereed Title First Monday (Chicago) D - Lib Magazine Library Electronic Communications in College & Research Libraries College & Research News College & Undergraduate Libraries Collection Management Libraries College & Research Business Finance Bulletin Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian Aslib Proceedings African Journal of Library, African Journal of Library, and Information Science American Libraries Science Archival Core Journals in Library and Information Science 77 3 2 1 2 5 4 4 4 5 1 2 1 2 2 # of Tallies 8 9 4 1 3 8 6 10 12 17 16 34 30 14 h-index from Google from Scholar Data Scholar 1 2 9 1 Faculty # of Purdue Publications ISI 1.24 0.308 0.528 0.822 1.673 1.878 0.761 0.143 Factor Impact in 2011 Circulation Circulation b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 90% 40% 35% 20% 30% 99% Rate 12.6% Cabell’s) Cabell’s) Cabell’s) Acceptance 6-10% (from 6-10 % (from 11-20% (from 11-20% able 3: T a 30 10 39 19 14 Directors a Titles in Study in Alphabetical Order in Study Titles 7 25 36 23 28 25 Dean's No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Known Refereed Title Interlending & Document Supply Interdisciplinary Journal of Interdisciplinary Information, Knowledge, and Interdisciplinary Journal of Interdisciplinary E-Learning and Learning Objects Informing Science Information Technology and Information Technology Libraries Information Society Information Research Harvard Library Bulletin Harvard Health Information and Libraries Journal Indiana Libraries Information Development Information Outlook & Information Processing Management Government Information Quarterly 78 College & Research Libraries January 2014 4 2 1 2 5 2 2 5 2 2 1 4 2 # of Tallies 3 6 4 8 3 9 10 23 12 20 22 13 24 h-index from Google from Scholar Data Scholar 9 3 2 8 1 Faculty # of Purdue Publications ISI 0.87 1.447 1.554 Factor Impact in 2011 Circulation Circulation b 11% 48% 75% 30% 40% 40% 40% 69% 22% 50% Rate 25-30% Cabell’s) Cabell’s) 21% (from 29% (from Acceptance able 3: T a 3 20 23 39 Directors a Titles in Study in Alphabetical Order in Study Titles 5 7 12 36 38 Dean's No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Refereed Title Journal of Engineering Education Journal of Information Ethics Journal of Documentation Journal of Education for Library and Information Science Journal of Digital Information Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship Journal of Agricultural & Food Journal of Information Journal of Academic Librarianship Journal of Issues in Science and Technology Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship International Journal on Digital Libraries International Journal of Library and Information Science International Journal of Information Management International Information and Library Review Core Journals in Library and Information Science 79 5 6 4 6 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 4 4 5 # of Tallies 8 4 6 8 4 7 18 13 15 19 46 12 12 24 h-index from Google from Scholar Data Scholar 1 4 9 1 3 1 5 Faculty # of Purdue Publications 0 ISI 1.362 0.191 0.413 0.529 0.898 0.844 2.137 0.521 0.636 2.907 1.406 Factor Impact in 2011 >5,000 > 5,000 > 5,000 Circulation Circulation b n.a. n.a. 45% 52% 75% 23% 54% 43% 13% 50% 61% 20% 17% Rate 10-25% Acceptance able 3: T a 9 7 11 20 30 23 15 26 28 35 26 Directors a Titles in Study in Alphabetical Order in Study Titles 3 1 34 39 30 13 14 27 29 17 Dean's Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Refereed Title Library Journal Library & Information Science Research Library Hi Tech , Collections, Services & Technical Knowledge Quest Journal Libraries & the Cultural Record Journal of Web Librarianship Journal of Web Journal of the Association Journal of the American Society Journal of the for Information Science and Technology Journal of Scholarly Publishing Journal of Librarianship and Information Science Journal of Information Technology Journal of Information Science 80 College & Research Libraries January 2014 2 2 2 2 4 1 3 4 5 1 1 5 6 5 1 # of Tallies 2 5 3 0 7 7 3 9 11 20 14 12 10 13 h-index from Google from Scholar Data Scholar 1 6 4 Faculty # of Purdue Publications ISI 0.87 0.596 0.991 0.507 0.365 0.353 0.667 0.239 0.651 Factor Impact in 2011 > 5,000 > 5,000 > 5,000 > 5,000 Circulation Circulation b n.a. n.a. n.a. 66% 35% 30% 40% 50% 13% 40% 35% Rate invited 60-65% Cabell’s) 53% (from Acceptance able 3: T a 2 6 4 33 17 29 Directors a Titles in Study in Alphabetical Order in Study Titles 9 6 1 23 33 17 40 15 Dean's No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Known Refereed Title Public Libraries Program Journal Pakistan Journal of Library and Information Science Portal Proceedings ASIST Online Information Review Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science Online Libri Libres Library Trends Library Resources & Technical & Technical Library Resources Services Library Quarterly Core Journals in Library and Information Science 81 2 2 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 6 1 # of Tallies 8 5 6 5 9 8 9 5 13 13 12 h-index from Google from Scholar Data Scholar 4 1 8 5 2 4 1 Faculty # of Purdue Publications ISI 0.707 0.023 0.375 0.338 . Factor Impact in 2011 > 5,000 Circulation Circulation b n.a. n.a. n.a. 67% 60% 80% 80% 60% 30% 36%- Rate Cabell’s) Acceptance 21-30% (from able 3: T a 5 13 Directors Cabell’s Directories of Publishing Opportunities Directories Cabell’s a Titles in Study in Alphabetical Order in Study Titles 20 30 10 Dean's No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Refereed Title Serials Review Zeitschrift fuer Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie Replication A Library Directors: ARL a. Nisonger and Davis, "The Perception of Library Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans 346–49. of the Kohl–Davis Study,", Acceptance rates are from editors unless noted as b. Serials Librarian Science & Technology Libraries Science & Technology Journal Restaurator School Library Media Research Reference Services Review Reference Reference Librarian Reference Public Services Quarterly & User Services Reference Quarterly 82 College & Research Libraries January 2014

The second criterion was inclusion ficult to obtain, the main disadvantage in the most recent expert opinion study to using the acceptance rate is that there available, the Nisonger-Davis study. All is limited research on how valid it is as journals that were rated as greater than an indicator of quality, causing some 2.0 (ranked 1–40 of 71 ranked journals) editors to be reluctant to provide this by the directors received a tally as did all statistic. However, other journal editors, titles rated by the deans as greater than 2.0 often those with high acceptance rates, (ranked 1–42 of 71 ranked journals). Since reported working closely with authors to Nisonger-Davis’ table 1 has two lists, improve otherwise unacceptable articles. deans and directors, a journal could get Journals with a very high circulation two tallies. These ranks were manually rate, a rate of 5,000 or higher, were given added to the spreadsheet. The advantages one tally. Since every author’s goal is to of using the Nisonger-Davis’ expert opin- reach as wide a population as possible, ion study are ease in compiling the data giving one tally to high circulation titles and its status as an authoritative article. was logical. It also provided a criterion The disadvantage is that it is not as cur- that was completely different from the rent as preferred. other criteria. Circulation data were All titles with an acceptance rate found in UlrichsWeb and gathered with below 50 percent received one tally. the import of the peer-reviewed journals This was approximately the average initially. The major advantages of using acceptance rate. Acceptance rate was circulation rate as an indicator are that selected partially because it provided a they are logical and readily available. The data point that was completely separate major disadvantage is that there is no re- from the expert opinion or citation data search indicating a relationship between and because a journal that receives two circulation and quality. or more times the number of submis- The next criterion was to give each sions it can publish is able to select the journal that had three or more articles best. Some research has confirmed this published by Purdue Libraries faculty relationship. Haensly, Hodges, and Dav- members during the last ten years a tally enport found lower acceptance rates to point. This provided the faculty with be associated with higher citation counts, input into the process via their choice of impact factors, and expert opinions (or publication venue. It is somewhat similar survey-based rankings) and concluded to the expert opinion criterion and is logi- that it could be used as a reasonable cal in that new faculty members would proxy for journal quality.24 Acceptance consider publishing where their more rates were not readily available for all experienced peers published. The list of titles on the list, although Cabell’s Di- Purdue University Libraries journals was rectories of Publishing Opportunities, in compiled from the annual list of publica- the section on Educational Technology tions in Purdue Libraries Annual Report,25 & Library Science, had acceptance rates an in-house publication that is posted on for 266 titles, of which about 130 were the Purdue Libraries web page. Tallies library-related journals. The Cabell rates were added manually to the spreadsheet. were retrieved in August of 2010 and The advantages of this criterion are that it merged into the database by matching provides recognition of journals favored titles. To supplement the Cabell data, the by the faculty and is easy to compile. author e-mailed journal editors asking Its disadvantage is that the ranking of their acceptance rate, and the response journals in this study favors publications rate was quite high. If a journal had an chosen by Purdue Libraries faculty for acceptance rate below 50 percent, either publication venue. Other libraries using in Cabell’s or as reported by the editor, these metrics will need to compile and a tally was credited. Besides being dif- adjust their data accordingly. Core Journals in Library and Information Science 83

All titles with an ISI impact factor re- limited to 2007 to 2011 to avoid Google ceived one tally. They were retrieved from Scholar’s maximum number of hits (1,000). Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports® In a few cases, this maximum was reached; for the 73 journals included in their “Infor- the h-index for those titles could be mation Science & Library Science” subject slightly higher than the results indicate. In category in the 2010 database. The impact most cases, the journal name was searched factors were merged into the spreadsheet in quotes, but titles with “and” or “&” of peer-reviewed LIS titles by matching were searched without quotes to be sure on the ISBN. The ISI journal impact factor to obtain all articles published in the jour- is based on the average number of times nal. During the Publish or Perish searches, the articles in a journal have been cited by the results were ranked by h-index, so all newer articles. ISI calculates the impact articles above the h-index level could be factor and the 5-year impact factor. The scanned. For example, a search of “Journal basic impact factor is derived by dividing of Information Technology” retrieved ar- the number of citations in the census year ticles published in “Journal of Information by the number of articles published in Technology & Tourism” and several other the previous two years. For example, an journals starting with “Journal of Informa- impact factor of 1.0 means that, on average, tion Technology.” These were fairly easy the articles published one or two years ago to remove by scanning the publication have been cited one time.26 The advantage and publisher field. The h-index was then of using the impact factors is that it is automatically recalculated. widely recognized, very easily retrieved, The h-indexes were compiled from and updated annually. Many studies have Publish or Perish searches for all titles that used the impact factor as a reliable citation had at least one tally. Forty of the 88 titles statistic; several of the citation studies dis- that had an h-index higher than seven cussed in the literature review used it. The were given one tally. (Appendix A has major disadvantage of the impact factor is a list of all titles searched, including the that the library field is poorly covered by search string, notes on the search strategy, ISI; therefore, there are many journals that date searched, and the h-index. Titles do not have an impact factor. exceeding the 1,000 hit limitation were To provide additional citation data, noted, as the h-index could be slightly especially for journals not rated by Thom- higher than the results indicated.) The son Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports®, the h-index range was 0 to 46. The Pearson h-index was chosen. This calculation was correlation between impact factor and developed by physicist Jorge Hirsch. He h-index is .723. This high correlation suggested that “a scientist has index h if was expected and is an indication of the h of his/her Np papers have at least h cita- reliability of this index. Other research tions each, and the other (Np − h) papers has also found correlation between these have no more than h citations each.” The indexes in the LIS field. Advantages of calculation can be applied to journals as adding the h-index to the review is its well as to authors. Although the h-index availability for nearly every journal. Dis- is available from the Web of Science, that advantages are that compiling the data score is limited to journals indexed by takes about ten hours and that Google ISI.27 The h-index can also be calculated Scholar data can change from day to day. by using Harzing’s Publish or Perish soft- ware, which uses the citations per article Findings in Google Scholar. The Harzing’s Publish The results of this tallying produced a or Perish software was downloaded,28 and working list of 90 titles. Five titles, which each journal that was identified by any were out of scope for LIS, were removed; of the other criteria was searched using these were journals outside the LIS field the “journal impact” tab. The search was where Purdue faculty had published, 84 College & Research Libraries January 2014 such as French Historical Studies. Two 11. Library Collections, Acquisitions, ceased titles were removed also. One title and Technical Services was removed because it only accepts sub- 12. Library & Information Science missions from members. The result was Research a list of 82 titles. (See table 3 for all titles 13. Library Journal and data in the study.) 14. Library Quarterly Of the 82 titles in this study, ten titles 15. Library Resources & Technical were not refereed; this left 72 titles to be Services sorted into the two tiers. Of the possible 16. Library Trends seven tallies, six journals received six or 17. Libri seven tallies each, identifying them as 18. RQ (title changed to Reference & the top six journals: College & Research User Services Quarterly) Libraries, Journal of the Medical Library As- Thirty-seven titles received between sociation, Library Collections, Acquisitions, two and four tallies and were added as and Technical Services, Library Journal, the tier two titles. Several of these titles Library Resources & Technical Services, represent sub-disciplines of LIS, such as and Reference & User Services Quarterly. archives, business, health, agricultural, Twelve titles received five tallies. These or interlibrary loan. A few titles have an top 18 titles constituted the most impor- international scope. This variety strength- tant titles, or tier one titles. Eleven of the ens the tier two list. Some of the titles are 18 were among the top journals in the from the information sciences side of LIS, literature review. (See bolded titles in which also adds breadth to the list. Sev- the list below.) Several of the titles not enteen titles that only received one tally identified in the literature review are were not added to any of the tiers. The 37 in subdisciplines such as government tier two titles, in alphabetical order, were: documents, , 1. or medical librarianship. This met a 2. Canadian Journal of Information and goal of our committee to have the most Library Science important subdiscipline journals on 3. College & Undergraduate Libraries the tier one list. The only title in the 4. The Electronic Library: the interna- combined title list of expert opinion/ tional journal for the application of citation surveys’ top titles excluded from technology in information this list was Information Processing and 5. First Monday (Chicago) Management. 6. Health Information and Libraries 1. Aslib Proceedings Journal (Print) 2. College & Research Libraries 7. Information Development 3. Collection Management 8. Information Processing & Manage- 4. Government Information Quarterly ment 5. Information Technology and 9. Information Research Libraries 10. The Information Society: an interna- 6. The Journal of Academic Librari- tional journal anship 11. Informing Science 7. Journal of Documentation 12. Interdisciplinary Journal of Informa- 8. Journal of Information Science tion, Knowledge, and Management 9. Journal of the American Society 13. Interlending & Document Supply for Information Science (title 14. International Information and Li- changed to Journal of the American brary Review Society for Information Science and 15. International Journal of Information Technology (JASIST)) Management 10. Journal of the Medical Library As- 16. International Journal on Digital sociation Libraries Core Journals in Library and Information Science 85

17. Issues in Science and Technology to compile the current list of the most Librarianship influential journals in the field. Top LIS 18. Journal of Agricultural & Food In- journals can be identified and ranked formation into tiers by compiling journals that are 19. Journal of Business & Finance Li- peer-reviewed and highly rated by the brarianship experts, have low acceptance rates and 20. Journal of Digital Information high circulation rates, are journals that 21. Journal of Education for Library and local faculty publish in, and have strong Information Science citation ratings as indicated by an ISI 22. Journal of Engineering Education impact factor and a high h-index using 23. Journal of Information Technology Google Scholar data. 24. Journal of Librarianship and Informa- Some caution is in order about these tion Science ratings. The results of this methodology 25. Journal of Scholarly Publishing can and will vary from year to year, and 26. Knowledge Quest even more frequently. The h-indexes 27. Law Library Journal can change daily, the impact factors and 28. Libraries & the Cultural Record acceptance rates also vary from year to 29. Library Hi Tech year. So the tier that any journal is in 30. Online Information Review could change. This is desirable because, 31. Portal as journals become more influential, they 32. Program: electronic library and infor- will rise in the rankings. mation systems 33. Public Library Journal Practical Uses of the Results 34. Reference Services Review Librarian-authors at tenure-track institu- 35. Restaurator tions can apply these methods annually 36. The Serials Librarian and create a ranked list of LIS journals. 37. Serials Review Or the methodology can provide a Eight titles, all which received two or framework for the faculty to discuss the more tallies but were not peer-reviewed, pros and cons of each criterion and cre- constitute tier three: ate selection criteria specifically for their 1. American Libraries library. The Purdue Libraries’ tiered list 2. College & Research Libraries News does not match these findings exactly, 3. D-Lib Magazine: The Magazine of but they were used in the final selection Research of titles. Librarian-authors, especially 4. Information Outlook more experienced authors and those in 5. Online: Exploring Technology & Re- tenured positions, could consider the tier sources for Information Professionals one journals as the first choice for submis- 6. Public Libraries sions. Librarians who are not publishing 7. School Library Journal will find the ranked lists useful as a quick summary of the most influential journals Conclusions in the field. The list could also be used There was strong agreement between by librarians who are asked to evaluate the titles on the tier one list and the top another librarian’s contribution to the journals identified in the literature review. literature by comparing the publications This gives credibility to the criteria used with the tiered lists. 86 College & Research Libraries January 2014

Appendix A The H-Index for Titles in the Study from Publish or Perisha Query Cites_Year h_index QueryDate African Journal of Library, Archives from 2007 to 14.33 4 3/14/2012 2011: all American Libraries from 2007 to 2011: all 58.67 7 3/8/2012 Annual Review of Information Science from 2007 to 214.83 20 3/14/2012 2011: all Archival Science from 2007 to 2011: all {miss hits 33.17 8 3/15/2012 removed] Aslib Proceedings from 2007 to 2011: all 171.5 14 3/14/2012 Proceedings annual meeting of the American Society 1 1 3/15/2012 for Information Science from 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes] Behavioral Social Sciences Librarian from 2007 to 16.5 5 3/15/2012 2011: all [no quotes] Canadian Journal of Information from 2007 to 11 4 3/14/2012 2011: all Collection Management from 2007 to 2011: all 49.17 8 3/15/2012 College & Research Libraries from 2007 to 2011: 287 17 3/14/2012 all [without quotes, miss hits removed] College Undergraduate Libraries from 2007 to 45.5 8 3/14/2012 2011: all College & Research Libraries News from 2007 to 79.67 10 3/14/2012 2011: all [without quotes] Communications in Information Literacy from 2007 18.67 6 3/15/2012 to 2011: all D-Lib from 2007 to 2011: all 252.67 18 3/15/2012 Educational Technology from 2007 to 2011: all 313 14 3/15/2012 [miss hits removed] Electronic Library from 2007 to 2011: all 314.5 18 3/19/2012 First Monday from 2007 to 2011: all 571.17 29 3/14/2012 Government Information Quarterly from 2007 to 600 30 3/16/2012 2011: all Harvard Library Bulletin from 2007 to 2011: all 0.2 1 3/16/2012 Harvard Library Bulletin from 2007 to 2011: all 0.2 1 3/19/2012 Health Information Libraries Journal from 2007 to 262.67 14 3/14/2012 2011: all [without quotes] Indiana Libraries from 2007 to 2011: all 3.67 3 3/16/2012 Information Development, NOT sci-tech from 2007 46 8 3/16/2012 to 2011: all Information Development from 2007 to 2011: all 425.33 8 3/16/2012 [miss hits removed] Information Outlook from 2007 to 2011: all 31.33 6 3/14/2012 Core Journals in Library and Information Science 87

Appendix A The H-Index for Titles in the Study from Publish or Perisha Query Cites_Year h_index QueryDate Information Processing Management from 2007 to 955.17 34 3/14/2012 2011: all [no quotes, miss hits removed] Information Research from 2007 to 2011: all [miss 224.17 16 3/16/2012 hits removed] Information Society from 2007 to 2011: all [miss 250.4 17 3/15/2012 hits removed] Information Society from 2007 to 2011: all 245.27 17 3/19/2012 Information Technology Libraries from 2007 to 87.83 12 3/14/2012 2011: all [no quotes, miss hits removed] Interdisciplinary Journal of e-learning from 2007 to 20.5 4 3/16/2012 2011: all Informing Science: International Journal of an 48.17 10 3/14/2012 Emerging Transdiscipline from 2007 to 2011: all Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge 36.17 9 3/14/2012 from 2007 to 2011: all Interlending Document Supply from 2007 to 2011: 74 8 3/14/2012 all [no quotes] International Information Library Review from 2007 63.67 9 3/16/2012 to 2011: all [no quotes] International Journal of Information Management 625.33 24 3/16/2012 from 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes, miss hits removed] International Journal of Information Management 455.83 24 3/16/2012 from 2007 to 2011: all International Journal of Library Information 6.25 3 3/16/2012 Science from 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes] International Journal on Digital Libraries from 99.83 13 3/14/2012 2007 to 2011: all Issues in Science Technology Librarianship from 38.33 8 3/14/2012 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes] Journal of Academic Librarianship from 2007 to 366 22 3/15/2012 2011: all Journal of Agricultural & Food Information from 15.17 4 3/14/2012 2007 to 2011: all Journal of Business Finance Librarianship from 25.5 6 3/14/2012 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes] Journal of Digital Information from 2007 to 2011: 114.67 12 3/14/2012 all [miss hits removed] Journal of Documentation from 2007 to 2011: all 304.17 20 3/14/2012 Journal of Education for Library Information 56.83 10 3/14/2012 Science from 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes] 88 College & Research Libraries January 2014

Appendix A The H-Index for Titles in the Study from Publish or Perisha Query Cites_Year h_index QueryDate Journal of Engineering Education from 2007 to 680 23 3/14/2012 2011: all [miss hits removed] Journal of Information Ethics from 2007 to 2011: all 6.67 3 3/22/2012 Journal of Information Science from 2007 to 2011: 591.33 24 3/14/2012 all [miss hits removed] Journal of Information Technology from 2007 to 452.5 21 3/16/2012 2011: all [miss hits removed] Journal of Librarianship Information Science from 79.5 12 3/14/2012 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes] Journal of Scholarly Publishing from 2007 to 2011: 36.17 7 3/14/2012 all Journal of the American Society for Information 1994.17 46 3/14/2012 Science from 2007 to 2011: all Journal of the Medical Library Association from 254.33 19 3/16/2012 2007 to 2011: all Journal of Web Librarianship from 2007 to 2011: all 36.83 6 3/16/2012 Knowledge Quest from 2007 to 2011: all 47.67 8 3/14/2012 Law Library Journal from 2007 to 2011: all 12.5 4 3/14/2012 Libraries the Cultural Record from 2007 to 2011: all 17.5 4 3/16/2012 [not quotes] Library and Information Science from 2007 to 2011: 16.33 3 3/16/2012 all [with quotes, then articles selected] Library Information Science Research from 2007 to 236.83 18 3/14/2012 2011: all [miss hits removed] Library Collections, Acquisitions, Technical Services 42.33 8 3/14/2012 from 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes] Library Hi Tech from 2007 to 2011: all [miss hits 212.67 15 3/14/2012 removed] Library Journal from 2007 to 2011: all [miss hits 283.67 13 3/14/2012 removed] Library Management from 2007 to 2011: all 120 13 3/14/2012 Library Quarterly, NOT stm from 2007 to 2011: all 92 10 3/14/2012 [miss hits removed] Library Resources Technical Services from 2007 to 57.67 9 3/14/2012 2011: all [no quotes] Library Trends from 2007 to 2011: all 133.33 12 3/14/2012 LibRes: Library and Information Science Research 5.17 3 3/14/2012 from 2007 to 2011: all Libri from 2007 to 2011: all 311.83 17 3/19/2012 Malaysian Journal of Library from 2007 to 2011: all 31.17 7 3/13/2012 Core Journals in Library and Information Science 89

Appendix A The H-Index for Titles in the Study from Publish or Perisha Query Cites_Year h_index QueryDate Online Information Review from 2007 to 2011: all 303 20 3/14/2012 Online: Exploring Technology from 2007 to 2011: 0 0 3/15/2012 allb Pakistan Journal of Library from 2007 to 2011: all 2.83 3 3/15/2012 portal: libraries from 2007 to 2011: all 108.83 14 3/15/2012 Program: Electronic Library from 2007 to 2011: all 83.17 11 3/15/2012 Public Libraries from 2007 to 2011: all [miss hits 51.17 5 3/15/2012 removed] Public Library Journal from 2007 to 2011: all 1.83 2 3/16/2012 Public Services Quarterly from 2007 to 2011: all 25.83 5 3/15/2012 Reference Librarian from 2007 to 2011: all 58.83 9 3/15/2012 Reference Reviews from 2007 to 2011: all 7 2 3/15/2012 Reference Services Review from 2007 to 2011: all 137.33 13 3/15/2012 Reference User Services Quarterly from 2007 to 112.17 12 3/15/2012 2011: all [no quotes] Restaurator from 2007 to 2011: all 61.17 9 3/16/2012 SBL Forum from 2007 to 2011: all 3.83 3 3/15/2012 School Library Journal from 2007 to 2011: all 65.33 8 3/15/2012 School Library Media Research from 2007 to 2011: 12.33 5 3/15/2012 all Science Technology Libraries from 2007 to 2011: all 33.33 6 3/15/2012 [no quotes] Serials Librarian from 2007 to 2011: all 84.5 8 3/15/2012 Serials Review from 2007 to 2011: all 105.67 13 3/15/2012 Utopian Studies from 2007 to 2011: all 8 3 3/15/2012 Zeitschrift Bibliothekswesen Bibliographie from 13.5 5 3/15/2012 2007 to 2011: all [no quotes] aHarzing’s Publish or Perish software is available from http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm#download [accessed 14–19 March 2012]. bA few journal titles were impossible to retrieve accurate results, such as Online, as many journals have “online” as part of their title.

Notes 1. Pamela S. Bradigan and Carol A. Mularski, “Evaluation of Academic Librarians’ Publica- tions for Tenure and Initial Promotion,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 22, no. 5 (1996): 360–65; Rickey D. Best and Jason Kneip, “Library School Programs and the Successful Training of Academic Librarians to Meet Promotion and Tenure Requirements in the Academy,” College & Research Libraries 71, no. 2 (2010): 97–114. 2. Kerry Smith and Mike Middleton, “Australian Library & Information Studies (LIS) Researchers Ranking of LIS Journals,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 40, no. 1 (2009): 1–21; Kerry Smith, “The Dawn of a New Era? Australian Library & Information Studies (LIS) 90 College & Research Libraries January 2014

Researchers Further Ranking of LIS Journals,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 42, no. 4 (2011): 320–41. 3. David F. Kohl and Charles H. Davis, “Ratings of Journals by ARL Library Directors and Deans of Library and Information Science Schools,” College and Research Libraries 46, no. 1 (1985): 40–47. 4. Virgil L.P. Blake, “The Perceived Prestige of Professional Journals, 1995: A Replication of the Kohl-Davis Study,” Education for Information 14, no. 3 (1996): 157–79; Thomas E. Nisonger and Charles H. Davis, “The Perception of Library and Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans and ARL Library Directors: A Replication of the Kohl-Davis Study,” College and Research Libraries 66, no. 4 (2005): 341–77. 5. Mary T. Kim, “Ranking of Journals in Library and Information Science: A Comparison of Perceptual and Citation-Based Measures,” College and Research Libraries 52, no. 1 (1991): 24–37. 6. John M. Budd, “The Literature of Academic Libraries: An Analysis,” College & Research Libraries 52 (1991): 290–95. 7. Belen A. Esteibar and F.W. Lancaster, “Ranking of Journals in Library and Information Science by Research and Teaching Relatedness,” Serials Librarian 23, no. 1 (1993): 1–10. 8. Kelly Blessinger and Michele Frasier, “Analysis of a Decade in Library Literature: 1994– 2004,” College & Research Libraries 68, no. 2 (2007): 155–69. 9. Barbara J. Via and Deborah J. Schmidle, “Investing Wisely: Citation Rankings as a Measure of Quality in Library and Information Science Journals,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 7, no. 3 (2007): 333–73. 10. Kohl and Davis, “Ratings of Journals by ARL Library Directors and Deans of Library and Information Science Schools,” 40–47. 11. Jesse H. Shera, Introduction to Library Science: Basic Elements of Library Service (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1976). 12. Kohl and Davis, “Ratings of Journals by ARL Library Directors and Deans of Library and Information Science Schools,” 42, Table 1. 13. Blake, “The Perceived Prestige of Professional Journals, 1995.” 14. Kim, “Ranking of Journals in Library and Information Science,” 24. 15. Ibid, 24–37. 16. Ibid., 30. 17. Ibid., 34. 18. Budd, “The Literature of Academic Libraries,” 290–95. 19. Esteibar and Lancaster, “Ranking of Journals in Library and Information Science by Re- search and Teaching Relatedness,” 1. 20. Via and Schmidle, “Investing Wisely,” 333–73. 21. Ibid., 336. 22. Blessinger and Frasier, “Analysis of a Decade in Library Literature: 1994–2004,” 155–69. 23. Jingfeng Xia, “Positioning Open Access Journals in a LIS Journal Ranking,” College & Research Libraries 73, no. 2 (2012): 134–45. 24. Paul J. Haensly, Paul E. Hodges, and Shirley A. Davenport, “Acceptance Rates and Journal Quality: An Analysis of Journals in Economics and Finance,” Journal of Business & Finance Librari- anship 14, no. 1 (2009): 2–31. 25. “Purdue University Libraries Annual Report,” available online at www.lib.purdue.edu/ admin/annualreports [accessed 28 May 2010]. 26. “ISI’s Journal Citation Reports help page,” available online at http://admin-apps.we- bofknowledge.com.login.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/JCR/JCR [accessed 23 November 2011]. 27. To obtain the h-index as calculated in the Web of Science, search for a journal name in the Web of Science in either Science Citation Index or Social Science Citation Index and then click on the “Create a report” icon. In these databases, the “h-index factor is based on the depth of your product subscription and your selected timespan. If your subscription depth is 10 years, then the h-index value is based on this depth even though a particular author may have published articles more than 10 years ago.” From Web of Science Help, available online at http://images.webofknowledge. com.login.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/WOKRS541B2/help/WOS/hp_citation_report_hindex.html [accessed 23 November 2011]. 28. Harzing’s Publish or Perish software is available online at www.harzing.com/pop. htm#download [accessed 14 March 2012].