Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals

Core Journals in Library and Information Science: Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals Judith M. Nixon In the library science field, there is no professionally accepted tiered list of journals in the United States to guide librarians, 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 librarian-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 members 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.

Load more