Examination of correlates of H-index as a measure of research productivity for library and information science faculty in the United States and Canada

  • Brady LundEmail author


This research analyzes research productivity among Library and Information Science (LIS) faculty based on number of publications and citations throughout the careers of tenure-track and tenured professors in LIS schools with an American Library Association-accredited Master of LIS program. The h-index is examined as a representative measure of LIS faculty output using a regression analysis. Based on observed variance in h-index and other research productivity measures across LIS schools, a regression is conducted based on several variables that distinguish these schools: Research 1 status, proportion of faculty who are full professors, where the university is located, whether the LIS school has a Ph.D. program, and whether the school is a member of the iSchool consortium. Findings indicate that h-index effectively represents the relative number of publications and citations a professor has while mitigating the impact of a few highly-cited publications that are not representative of an entire body of work. In addition to Research 1 status and proportion of full professors, iSchool membership is identified as a factor that influences a LIS school’s h-index vale. These findings have relevance to LIS readers interested in analyzing productivity of individual researchers and schools, researchers interested in the measurement of the effect of the h-index value on evaluating research productivity, and readers interested in the impact of the iSchool movement on research in LIS.


H-index Hirsch index Scientific output Research productivity Library and information science Citation index Library and information science faculty 


  1. Adkins, D., & Budd, J. M. (2006). Scholarly productivity of US LIS faculty. Library and Information Science Research, 28(3), 374–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajiferuke, I., & Wolfram, D. (2009). Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: Library and information science as a case study. Scientometrics, 83(3), 623–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, T. R., Hankin, R. K. S., & Killworth, P. D. (2008). Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output. Scientometrics, 76(3), 577–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, C. (2017). The h-index debate: An introduction for librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(6), 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, M. J. (1980). A criterion rate for information scientists. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science Annual Meeting, 17, 276–278.Google Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2008). The state of h-index research. EMBO Reports, 10, 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. (2008a). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.Google Scholar
  8. Bornmann, L., Wallon, G., & Ledin, A. (2008b). Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessment of peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Budd, J. M. (2000). Scholarly productivity of US LIS faculty: An update. The Library Quarterly, 70(2), 230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budd, J. M. (2015). Productivity of US LIS and iSchool faculty. Library and Information Science Research, 37(4), 290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Budd, J. M., & Seavey, C. A. (1996). Productivity of US library and information science faculty: The Hayes study revisited. The Library Quarterly, 66(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang, Y. W., Huang, M. H., & Lin, C. W. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2071–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, Y., & Liu, Z. (2016). The H-index and first-author H-index of Chinese Scholars in LIS. In 2016 6th international conference on mechatronics, computer and education informationization (MCEI 2016). Atlantis Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275–1278.Google Scholar
  15. Cuadra, C. A. (1964). Identifying key contributions to information science. American Documentation, 15(4), 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galbraith, Q., Smart, E., Smith, S. D., & Reed, M. (2014). Who publishes in top-tier library science journals? An analysis by faculty status and tenure. College and Research Libraries, 75(5), 724–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes, R. M. (1983). Citation statistics as a measure of faculty research productivity. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 23, 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the h-index have predictive power? PNAS, 104(49), 19193–19198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang, M. (2012). Exploring the h-index at the institutional level: A practical application in world university rankings. Online Information Review, 36(4), 534–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasco, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32(3), 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu, Y., & Roussseau, R. (2008). Properties of Hirsch-type indices: The case of library classification categories. Scientometrics, 79(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lund, B. D., Wang, T., & White, D. E. (2019). University program rankings in the United States: Failures in assessing important factors for library and information science students. Education for Information. (in-press).Google Scholar
  24. Meho, L. I., & Spurgin, K. M. (2005). Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(12), 1314–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nixon, J. M. (2014). Core journals in library and information science: Developing a methodology for ranking LIS journals. College and Research Libraries, 75(1), 66–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Norris, M. (2009). The h-index: A broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 681–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oppenheim, C. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 297–301.Google Scholar
  28. Pettigrew, K. E., & Nicholls, P. T. (1994). Publication patterns of LIS faculty from 1982–1992: Effects of doctoral programs. Library and Information Science Research, 16(2), 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saad, G. (2006). Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively. Scientometrics, 69(1), 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shaw, D., & Vaughan, L. (2008). Publication and citation patterns among LIS faculty: Profiling a “typical professor”. Library and Information Science Research, 30(1), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2015). Worldwide contributors to the literature of library and information science: Top authors, 2007–2012. Scientometrics, 103(1), 301–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406–415.Google Scholar
  33. Yazit, N., & Zainab, A. N. (2007). Publication productivity of Malaysian authors and institutions in LIS. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 12(2), 35–55.Google Scholar
  34. Zhang, C. T. (2009). The e-Index: Complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emporia State UniversityEmporiaUSA

Personalised recommendations