H-index and promotion decisions

Abdekhoda, Mohammadhiwa H-index and promotion decisions. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 2019, vol. 66, n. 4. (In Press) [Journal article (Unpaginated)]

[thumbnail of H-index and promotion decisions.pdf]
Preview
 Text
H-index and promotion decisions.pdf - Published version
Download (56kB) | Preview

English abstract

Two disciplines, medicine and health management & information sciences which offer graduate programs were studied. From well known citation databases, it was found that significantly higher number and impact factors of journals of high consensus disciplines indicate a higher chance of publication for the faculty members of these disciplines compared with low consensus disciplines. Due to the shortcomings of current scientometric indexes and movement towards new generation universities, it seems imperative for evaluation and promotion committees to reconsider the criteria which are largely publication-based. It is suggested that potential differences across disciplines as well as individual competencies and differences within disciplines betaken into consideration in decision making about promotion of faculty members.

Item type: Journal article (Unpaginated)
Keywords: Promotion; Evaluation; H-index; G-index; High consensus disciplines; Low consensus disciplines
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information.
A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AB. Information theory and library theory.
Depositing user: Dr. Mohammadhiwa Abdekhoda
Date deposited: 29 Dec 2019 06:54
Last modified: 29 Dec 2019 06:54
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/39428

References

1. Bana e Costa Carlos A. and Oliveira MD, A multicriteria decision analysis model for faculty evaluation, Omega, 40 (4) (2012) 424-36.

2. Hallinger P, Using faculty evaluation to improve teaching quality: A longitudinal case study of higher education in Southeast Asia, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22 (4) ( 2010) 253-74.

3. Arreola R A, Issues in developing a faculty evaluation system, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53 (1) (1999) 56-63.

4. Howell LP, Poon B, Nesbitt TS and Anders TF, A web-based data repository and review system for faculty evaluation and promotion, Academic Medicine, 82 (7) ( 2007) 704-12.

5. Wolfgang AP, Gupchup GV and Plake KS, Relative importance of performance criteria in promotion and tenure decisions: perceptions of pharmacy faculty members, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 59 (4) (1995) 342-47.

6. Lakin AL, Effective faculty evaluation at the teaching centered university: Building a fair and authentic portfolio of faculty work, International Journal of Educational Management, 30 (6) ( 2016) 976-88.

7. Zhang Q, Feng W and Shao W, A new approach to faculty evaluation with uncertain information, In ISIP 2008: Proceedings of the 2008 International Symposium on Information Processing, DOI: 10.1109/ISIP.2008.58

8. Costas R and Bordons M, The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level, Journal of Informetrics, 1 (3) ( 2007) 193-203.

9. Ahmady S, Changiz T, Brommels M, Gaffney FA, Thor J and Masiello I, Contextual adaptation of the personnel evaluation standards for assessing faculty evaluation systems in developing countries: the case of Iran, BMC Medical Education, 9 (1) ( 2009) 18.

10. Tootoonchi M, Yamani N, Changiz T, Taleghani F and Mohammadzadeh Z, Assessment of educational criteria in academic promotion: Perspectives of faculty members of medical sciences universities in Iran, Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 3 (2014) 29, DOI: 10.4103/2277-9531.131893

11. Kamali F, Yamani N, Changiz T and Zoubin F, Factors influencing the results of faculty evaluation in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 7 (2018) 13, DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_107_17

12. Gilavand A, Pathology of faculty members’ rank promotion in universities and higher education institutions affiliated to the ministry of health and medical education of the Islamic

republic of Iran, International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences, 5 (9S) (2016) 25-30.

13. Bar-Ilan J, Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar, Scientometrics, 74 (2) ( 2008) 257-271.

14. Bornmann L, Mutz R and Daniel HD, 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 American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (5) (2008) 830-37.

15. Purvis A, The h index: playing the numbers game, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21 (8) (2006) 422.

16. Kreiner G, The slavery of the h-index—measuring the unmeasurable, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10 (2016) 556.

17. Hirsch JE, An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output, Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences; 102 (46) (2005) 16569-72.

18. Kelly CD and Jennions MD. The h index and career assessment by numbers, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21 (4) ( 2006) 167-70.

19. Egghe L, Theory and practise of the g-index, Scientometrics, 69 (1) (2006) 131-52.

20. Popova O, Romanov D, Popov B, Karandey V, Kobzeva S and Evseeva M, New methods and evaluation criteria of research efficiency, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6 (6 S5) (2015) 212.

21. Alonso S, Cabrerizo F, Herrera-Viedma E and Herrera F, hgindex: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h-and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82 (2) (2009) 391-400.

22. Jackson J K, Latimer M and Stoiko R, The dynamic between knowledge production and faculty evaluation: Perceptions of the promotion and tenure process across disciplines, Innovative Higher Education, 42 (3) (2017) 193-205.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS