Analyzing the collective opinion of presumed experts, often termed a perception study, is a frequently used approach for rating journals or evaluating education programs. Replicating the 1985 Kohl–Davis study, seventy-one library and information science (LIS) journals are ranked according to their mean rating on a 1 to 5 ordinal scale by deans of ALA-accredited education programs and by the directors of ARL libraries (surveyed during the summer of 2003). Comparison of the results with the 1985 study found considerable continuity in journal perceptions over the past two decades, but more so by directors than deans. A weak to moderate correlation was found between deans’ ratings and Journal Citation Reports citation scores, whereas the correlations between directors’ perceptions and citation data were weak to nonexistent. The findings confirm a hierarchy of prestige among LIS journals, but the hierarchical order differs somewhat between deans and directors.

An overview and analysis of the Journal Citation Reports' impact factor is provided here. The historical development, calculation of, and alternatives to impact factor are briefly described. Nine general uses of impact factor, including library collection management decisions, journal rankings, journal decision models, and full-text database evaluation, are discussed. Ten benefits, such as its well-established authority, are listed. Finally, more than a dozen criticisms of citation data in general (e.g., self-citations are counted) and impact factor specifically (e.g., problems with the formula for its calculation) are analyzed. The author concludes that impact factor, if used appropriately and in combination with other criteria, is a valid tool that can assist journal collection management decisions in research libraries.

This article presents a case study investigating the coverage completeness of the Institute for Scientific Information's citation data for specific authors, based on analysis of this author's lifetime citation record, which was compiled through the ISI database, searching the literature for nearly fifteen years, and through various Web search engines. It was found that (with self-citations disregarded) the ISI captured 28.8 percent of the total citations, 42.2 percent of print citations, 20.3 percent of citations from outside the United States, and 2.3 percent of non-English citations. The definition and classification of Web citations are discussed. It is suggested that librarians and faculty should not rely solely on ISI author citation counts, especially when demonstration of international impact is important.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image sizeKey Words: Political scienceinternational relationsperiodicalsbibliographytwentieth century

Three measures of international composition on journal editorial boards the number of countries represented on the board, the number of international members, and the proportion of international board members-were correlated with impact factor and total citation data in the 1999 journal Citation Reports for 153 business, political science, and genetics journals. With a few exceptions the relationship between international editorial board composition and citation measures was non-linear, leading to the conclusion that international membership on the editorial board can not generally be used as a marker of better journal quality. Yet further investigation is warranted due to positive correlations between some editorial board and citation measures for non-U.S. business and political science journals.

An overview of traditional methods of evaluating serials collections and serial titles is presented and applied to electronic resources. Traditional methods such as holdings, checklist, conspectus, availability studies, document delivery studies, citation studies and use studies used for the evaluation of serials collections in print can be modified for the evaluation of electronic serials collections. Issues, problems and challenges associated with electronic serials evaluation are then outlined, and conclusions that emphasize the continuing importance of serials evaluation in the electronic environment are drawn.

This article explores the use of the Institute for Scientific Information’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for journal management in academic libraries. The advantages and disadvantages to using JCR citation data for journal management are outlined, and a literature review summarizes reported uses of these data by libraries and scholars. This study researches the impact of journal self-citation on JCR rankings of library and information science (LIS) and genetics journals. The 1994 rankings by impact factor and total citations received were recalculated with journal self-citations removed; then the recalculated rankings were compared to the original rankings to analyze the effect of self-citations. It is concluded that librarians can use JCR data without correcting for journal self-citation, although self-citations do exert a major effect on the rankings for a small number of journals.

The concept of journal ranking is explained along with the theoretical and practical significance of ranking journals. An eight-variable model for classifying journal-ranking studies is outlined. A review of LIS journal rankings of the last half-century identifies 178 published between 1952 and 1997. The majority of these used some type of citation measure, followed by rankings based on production, subjective judgment, and reading, respectively. Analysis of JASIS's, and its immediate predecessor, American Documentation's, position in these rankings, found that they were logically excluded from 18. In the remaining 160, they ranked first in 20 and in the top five in 88. It is noted that JASIS also appears on many lists of “core” LIS journals, and that it has been the object of investigation in numerous studies.

This research project, still in progress, investigates the effect of journal self-citedness on Journal Citation Reports rankings of library and information science and genetics journals using data from the 1994 JCR on CD-ROM. The original JCR rankings by impact factor and total citations were contrasted with recalculated rankings in which journal self-citations were eliminated, using three methods of comparison: Pearson Product Movement correlation, overlap among top-ranking journals, and a modification of the Mankin and Bastille approach for analyzing journal movement in rank. Results for library and information science indicate the effect of self-citedness on both JCR impact factor and total citation rankings was minimal, although notable differences in rank were observed for a few journals. The preliminary conclusion is that one can use JCR rankings without adjusting the data for journal self-citedness.

Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, volume 1, number 1 (January 1977) through volume 19, number 4 (Winter 1995) is analyzed. A literature review identifies numerous other studies of authorship patterns in library and information science (LIS) journals. This study's major findings are: 80.6% of LAPT authors contributed a single article, while 3.9% wrote four or more; 15.6% of the articles were collaboratively written by two or more authors; 65.4% of LAPT authors were academic librarians and 10.6% were vendors; a majority (53.9%) were male, but longitudinal analysis shows an increasing portion of female authors; and 15.3% of LAPT authors were from outside the U.S. Comparisons are made with other LIS journals and explanations for the findings are briefly speculated upon.