Search results

This study aims to develop a framework for applying performance management principles to implementing a pluralistic model of scholarly impact in business schools to increase the value and relevance scholarly research to multiple stakeholder groups.

Performance management principles were studied with case study data of scholarly impact that included bibliographic measures and altmetrics. An analytical model was built for a focal business school that provided benchmarks for managing scholarly impact by using data from three peer schools.

Bibliographic, scholarly output measures and altmetrics were consistent across the focal school and peer schools, thereby providing a solid foundation for establishing performance benchmarks for annual performance reviews, promotion and tenure decisions and organizational impact goals.

This paper provides guidance for designing, building and implementing performance management systems to foster scholarly impact.

This paper integrates pluralistic impact models and performance management systems to build faculty expertise and align it with multiple impact domains.

Scholarly interest in carrying out impactful research continues to remain high. Yet, given that citations of scholarly work can never decrease with time, traditional measures of research impact (such as raw counts of citations) unwittingly discriminate against early career researchers and also make it hard to identify future high impact scholars. In the current study, the paper compares several commonly used measures of research impact to identify one that best normalizes for the effect of career stage. The measure thus applies equally across most career stages, providing a usable impact benchmark for logistics scholars irrespective of seniority level. The paper also aims to present benchmarks on that metric to help logistics scholars identify their research impact vis-à-vis their peers.

Bibliometric data on the research of 702 logistics scholars were collected and analyzed by dividing the scholars into different cohorts based on seniority. Comparisons of different citation metrics were then made.

The h-rate provides the most appropriate basis for comparing research impact across logistics scholars of various career stages. Benchmark h-rates are provided for scholars to identify their research impact.

The authors are unaware of any other work in the logistics field that measures the research impact of logistics scholars in this manner.

Whereas traditional book and journal publishing remain the gold standard for many post-secondary institutions, nontraditional publishing is just as prolific at the flagship university in Maine. The university has strong land and sea grant missions that drive a broad research agenda, with an emphasis on community outreach and engagement. However, the impact of researchers’ contributions outside of academe is unlikely to be accurately reflected in promotion, tenure or review processes. Thus, the authors designed a series of altmetrics workshops aimed at seeding conversations around novel ways to track the impact of researchers’ diverse scholarly and creative outputs.

This paper presents a case study of the instructional approach taken at the University of Maine library to facilitate discussions of alternative impact assessments that reach beyond traditional publications.

Evaluations revealed an increased awareness of, and interest in, impact tracking tools that capture both traditional scholarship, like journal articles, and nontraditional scholarly and creative outputs, such as videos, podcasts and newsletters. The authors learned that altmetrics provides an entry point into a broader conversation about scholarly impact, and was best received by those whose scholarly output is not always captured by traditional metrics.

Scholars are equipped with novel methods for describing the value of their work and discovering a broader audience for their research. Future initiatives will target the needs identified through initial conversations around altmetrics.

Altmetrics workshops provide spaces to explore the potential for new tools that capture a range of previously unconsidered measures of impact, and to discuss the implications of those measures.

After 40 years, IJPDLM received its first impact factor from Web of Science in 2010. This anniversary editorial provides a retrospective bibliometric assessment of IJPDLM over its initial five years as a Web of Science journal (2011-2015). First, IJPDLM’s citation metrics are compared to those for the Web of Science journal subject category of Management. Next, IJPDLM’s most cited articles, best papers and special issues together with the international diversity of the journal’s author base from 2011 to 2015 are reviewed. The analysis also presents the journals that cite IJPDLM most frequently, as well as the journals most frequently cited in IJPDLM. Finally, IJPDLM is compared to peer journals in the logistics and SCM field on various scholarly metrics including impact factor, five-year impact factor, h5-index, number of citations received and self-citation rate. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Retrospective bibliometric analysis of IJPDLM from 2011 to 2015.

Boosted by the journal’s admission to Web of Science in 2010, IJPDLM has made steady progress toward fulfilling the mission of providing its constituents with timeliness, inclusiveness and impact.

The comparison of IJPDLM’s scholarly metrics with those of peer journals and journals in the Web of Science Management category will be of interest and value to logistics and SCM researchers.

The retrospective overview and celebration of IJPDLM’s progress over the last five years and future directions will be of interest to the journal’s stakeholders and prospective authors.

The purpose of this study is to assess the value of altmetrics or other indicators, showcasing the impact of academic output, which is seen too often correlated with the citation count.

This study considered three reputed journals of Library and Information Science (LIS) published by Elsevier. A total of 1,164 articles were found in these journals from 2016 to 2020 and the relationships between altmetric attention scores (AAS) and citations were examined. The analysis was extended to compare the grouped data set based on percentile ranks of AAS like top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1%.

Using Spearman correlation analysis, the findings reveal a positive correlation between AAS and citations with different significant levels for all articles, and articles with AAS, as well as for normalized AAS in the top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1% data set. For the three journals International Journal of Information Management (IJIM), Journal of Informetrics (JIF) and Library and Information Science Research (LISR), a significant positive correlation is observed across all data sets. But an unexpected result was observed: in the case of the top 50% of articles for the IJIM and JIF showed no significant correlation but the LISR journal showed a positive correlation for the whole data set. This journal though has fewer articles in comparison to the other two.

A source item that is highly cited may not be having high social media attention as reflected in the findings. This demarcates AAS with citations implying various factors on which these measurements are dependent. The study distinguishes these metrics lucidly. There is not a single guideline or uniformity in assessing the correlation found. But the problem is that the interpretation of the correlation strength affects the conclusion of the study. Moreover, this study will be a role model as a draft for librarians to select relevant journals for their libraries and will facilitate authors in the choice of the publication outlets for their papers, particularly concerning the journals that have both visibility and research impact.

The study reported devising a comprehensive tool to validate AAS as a measure of scholarly impact to include appropriate social media sources and verify its relationship with other metrics. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first attempt to discover the correlation between AAS and citations for the highly impactful LIS journal published by Elsevier. The empirical evidence lies in the citation and altmetric data extracted from the dimension database.

This study aims to compare the impacts of proceedings papers in the fields of social science and humanities (SSH) and science.

This study involved not only citations but also altmetric indexes to compare the impacts of proceedings papers among multiple disciplines with 1,779,166 records from Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) in the Web of Science (WoS) in the period of 2013–2017. The mean value, concentration ratio, Lorenz curves and correlation analysis are utilized into the comparative analysis.

(1) Proceedings papers in science fields had higher scholarly impacts than those in SSH fields. (2) As for societal impact, clinical, pre-clinical and health still ranked first, whereas physical science and engineering and technologies were transcended by SSH fields, which is different from the scholarly impact of proceedings papers. (3) As for proceedings papers, citations and altmetric indexes have weak or moderate correlations in all six fields, indicating that altmetrics can be supplemented when assessing proceedings papers.

This study is expected to enhance the understanding of proceedings papers and to promote accuracy of evaluation for them by exhibiting the multidisciplinary differences of their scholarly and societal impacts.