IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamest/v51y2000i2p123-138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: A case study of Kurdish scholarship

Author

Listed:
  • Lokman I. Meho
  • Diane H. Sonnenwald

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation content analysis and book review content analysis. Two main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews, and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valid evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? Citation data, book reviews, and peer ranking were compiled and examined for faculty members specializing in Kurdish studies. Analysis shows that normalized citation ranking and citation content analysis data yield identical ranking results. Analysis also shows that normalized citation ranking and citation content analysis, book reviews, and peer ranking perform similarly (i.e., are highly correlated) for high‐ranked and low‐ranked senior scholars. Additional evaluation methods and measures that take into account the context and content of research appear to be needed to effectively evaluate senior scholars whose performance ranks relatively in the middle. Citation content analysis data did appear to give some specific and important insights into the quality of research of these middle performers, however, further analysis and research is needed to validate this finding. This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Lokman I. Meho & Diane H. Sonnenwald, 2000. "Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: A case study of Kurdish scholarship," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(2), pages 123-138.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:51:y:2000:i:2:p:123-138
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:23.0.CO;2-N
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:23.0.CO;2-N
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:23.0.CO;2-N?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. P. Vinkler, 2010. "Indicators are the essence of scientometrics and bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 861-866, December.
    2. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, 2015. "The VQR, Italy's second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2202-2214, November.
    3. Dangzhi Zhao & Elisabeth Logan, 2002. "Citation analysis using scientific publications on the Web as data source: A case study in the XML research area," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 449-472, July.
    4. Soo-Ryun Cho, 2008. "New evaluation indexes for articles and authors’ academic achievements based on Open Access Resources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 91-112, October.
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco D’Angelo, 2015. "An assessment of the first “scientific habilitation” for university appointments in Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 32(3), pages 329-357, December.
    6. Zheng Yan & Wenqian Robertson & Yaosheng Lou & Tom W. Robertson & Sung Yong Park, 2021. "Finding leading scholars in mobile phone behavior: a mixed-method analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9499-9517, December.
    7. Mariana Pires Luz & Carla Marques-Portella & Mauro Mendlowicz & Sonia Gleiser & Evandro Silva Freire Coutinho & Ivan Figueira, 2008. "Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian Psychiatric Post-graduation Programs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 361-368, November.
    8. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    9. Jean A. Pratt & Karina Hauser & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2012. "Defining the intellectual structure of information systems and related college of business disciplines: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 279-304, November.
    10. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Tindaro Cicero & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2013. "National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 311-324, April.
    12. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Mónica D., 2012. "A multicriteria decision analysis model for faculty evaluation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 424-436.
    13. Abramo, Giovanni, 2018. "Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 590-597.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:51:y:2000:i:2:p:123-138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.