In the July issue of C&RL, Thomas Nisonger & Charles Davis have a paper titled “The Perception of Library and Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans and ARL Library Directors: A Replication of the Kohl-Davis Study.” This is, well, a replication of the 1985 Kohl-Davis study, which ranked LIS journals based on the perceptions of LIS school deans and research library directors. Mostly because I was just curious (and because I’m hung up on IF lately — must be my upcoming 3rd year review), I decided to compare Nisonger & Davis’ findings with the latest IF rankings. Conveniently, both are based on 2003 data. So I created this table, comparing the latest IFs (which you can download from Web of Science) & the K-D results (but only the data from deans, since that’s what I personally care about). I only have the top 20 rankings here, though IF goes to 55 & K-D goes to 71.
|1||ARIST||JASIST / LQ|
|3||J Amer Medical Informatics Ass’n||ARIST / LISR|
|4||Info Syst Res|
|5||Info Manag – Amsterdam||JDoc|
|7||JASIST||JAL / IP&M|
|10||J Manage Info Syst||RUSQ|
|12||J Info Sci||JELIS|
|13||Int J Geogr Inf Sci||Libraries & Culture|
|14||J Health Commun||J of the Medical Library Association|
|15||Lib Resources & Tech Svcs||Lib Resources & Tech Svcs|
|16||Gov Info Q||School Library Media Research|
|17||Int J Info Manage||J Info Sci / Libri|
|19||Libr Inform Sci||J Amer Medical Informatics Ass’n|
|20||LISR||School Library Journal|
Interesting that in the top 10, only 3 appear on both lists, and only 9 appear in both top 20s.
Bollen et al. have an article in the December 2005 issue of IP&M (don’t even ask me how that’s out yet) titled “Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data.” In it they propose this taxonomy of impact measures:
The first dimension corresponds to whether an impact measure is based on frequency-based metrics as opposed to structural metrics. The second dimension concerns whether a measure is based on author- or reader-defined data sets.
Clearly the K-D study measures reader-defined ranking. But it seems to me that the X-axis really needs 3 points (thus making it a plane, not an axis, yes, I know): frequency-based, structural, & perceptual metrics.