The Use of Bibliometric Indicators to Measure the Research Productivity of Australian Academics

Abstract

The appropriateness of using the database used by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in compiling the Science Citation Index (SCI) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) to measure the research productivity of Australian academics is examined. It is shown from analysis of publications listed in the research reports of three Australian universities that only 27% of journal articles authored by academics in social science disciplines are captured by the ISI database, in contrast to 74% of journal articles generated by academics in science disciplines. Using a performance indicator based solely on ISI source indexes will thus provide a distorted view of the research output of Australian academics, particularly in the social sciences. The alternatives of relying on entries in discipline-specific source indices or permitting universities or individuals to decide what constitutes a publication, and hence is to be included in the count, raise additional concerns. The major problem in using frequency of publication as a measure of research productivity is to arrive at a valid definition of what constitutes a publication.The analyses reported in this article were supported by funding to Pam Royle through the Borchardt Library, La Trobe University. Correspondence relating to the article should be directed to either Pam Royle, Borchardt Library, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia 3083, or Ray Over, Department of Psychology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia 3083.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.