بهره وری در مجلات روانشناسی تربیتی 2003-2008

Productivity of individuals and institutions in educational psychology journals has been previously examined in three separate studies (Hsieh et al. [Hsieh, P., Acee, T., Chung, W., Hsieh, Y., Kim, H., Thomas, G. D., et al. (2004). An alternate look at educational psychologist’s productivity from 1991 to 2002. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 333–343]; Smith et al. [Smith, M. C., Locke, S. G., Boisse, S. J., Gallagher, P. A., Krengel, L. E., & Kuczek, J. E., et al. (1998). Productivity of educational psychologists in educational psychology journals, 1991–1996. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 173–181]; [Smith, M. C., Plant, M., Carney, R. N., Arnold, C. S., Jackson, A., Johnson, L. S., et al. (2003). Further productivity of educational psychologists in educational psychology journals, 1997–2001. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 422–430.]) spanning the years 1991–2002. The present study updates this literature by examining the same five journals: Cognition and Instruction, Contemporary Educational Psychology, the Educational Psychologist, Educational Psychology Review, and the Journal of Educational Psychology from 2003 to 2008. Individual productivity was calculated by the number of (a) articles published and (b) points based on a formula that considers author position in relation to the number of authors. The University of Maryland and Richard E. Mayer maintained their positions as the top research institution and author, respectively. There was also growth in collaboration as well as international involvement as measured by number of authors.

Over 10 years ago, Smith et al. (1998) published the first study of individual and institutional productivity in five educational psychology journals: Cognition and Instruction (C&I), Contemporary Educational Psychology (CEP), the Educational Psychologist (EP), Educational Psychology Review (EPR), and the Journal of Educational Psychology (JEP). Since then, two more studies have appeared ( Hsieh et al., 2004 and Smith et al., 2003), spanning the years 1991 to 2002. Why should we be interested in productivity? Even with the increasing emphasis on quality teaching, publications in refereed journals remain a key factor in university promotion and tenure decisions ( Wilson, 2001). In 1994, deans and chairs of education departments listed such publications as the top factor in making tenure decisions ( Marchant & Newman, 1994). They also found that an institution’s increased emphasis on publications was associated with greater student diversity, more masters degrees granted, more library resources, and increased money for development ( Marchant & Newman, 1994). With this in mind, productivity is an important consideration when choosing a university for graduate study or future job opportunities. In terms of individual productivity, traditionally, single and first-authored publications have received more weight than secondary authorships (Smith et al., 1998 and Smith et al., 2003). However, the benefits of collaboration during the publication process have been documented across academia (Smart & Bayer, 1986) and multi-authored publications are increasing (Cronin et al., 2003 and Endersby, 1996). In response to this trend, recent productivity studies have used two different ways to define productive authors. Smith et al., 1998 and Smith et al., 2003 used a formula that gives weighted credit to authors depending on authorship order. This procedure values single and first-authored publications more than secondary authorships based on an assumed difference in authors’ contribution to an article (i.e., authors listed first are assumed to contribute more than authors listed later). The formula is an effective technique for calculating institutional productivity (i.e., simple article counts per author would be misleading if there were multiple authors on articles from the same institution). However, for calculating individual productivity, such a formula may discourage authors interested in being recognized for their individual productivity from including co-authors because of the reduced point totals. In an attempt to reposition the concept of productivity, Hsieh et al.’s (2004) method of determining individual productivity was developed to recognize authors who choose to collaborate rather than fly solo. Hsieh et al. ranked the top authors based simply on total number of articles authored, regardless of author position. This method eliminates any issues with how authorship order is assigned. Even with APA guidelines, order of authorship is a complex issue (Costa and Gatz, 1992 and Moore and Griffin, 2006). The problem can be exacerbated by the power inequality when faculty and students collaborate on research (Fine & Kurdek, 1993). In the present study, we created two individual productivity lists with data from 2003 to 2008 so that readers can judge for themselves which approach may be a more accurate measure of productivity. In addition, we examined institutional productivity, numbers of authors per article, and articles authored by international scholars. Why examine international authors? Over the last decade, contributions to these five journals by authors outside the US have increased. Welcoming the broader perspective international authors add to the field, similar to collaborative vs. individual efforts, our findings include an analysis of international trends and authors per article.

Our purposes for this study were simply to update the 2003–2008 rankings of the most productive authors and institutions as well as to analyze educational psychology article trends in terms of collaboration and international involvement. Our findings revealed that institutional and individual productivity in educational psychology journals has been remarkably consistent in terms of the top performers (the University of Maryland, College Park, and Richard E. Mayer, respectively) over the past 18 years. At the same time, some institutions have recently appeared (e.g., the University of Nevada, Las Vegas) and disappeared (e.g., the University of Western Sydney), perhaps due in part to the addition and subtraction of productive individuals. Other institutions remain highly productive (e.g., the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) despite not having any individual faculty members appear in the top 25 lists. Of course, defining institutional and individual productivity in terms of publishing in only five targeted journals is an admittedly narrow view. Finally, although a few individuals continue to be highly productive, some individuals have appeared in this most recent ranking, whereas others have disappeared. Consistent with previous studies (Hsieh et al., 2004, Smith et al., 1998 and Smith et al., 2003), we hope that the findings may be useful to potential graduate students who are considering where they would like to pursue a degree. In terms of collaboration, it is easier for faculty members who seldom publish with graduate students to rank among the most productive authors in terms of points than it is for those who frequently publish with graduate students and are rarely first or sole authors. For that reason, we also calculated productivity in terms of number of articles authored to recognize the latter type of faculty member. Collaboration, as measured by the average number of authors per article, has continued to increase in both empirical and non-empirical journals over the past 18 years. Because our field is becoming more collaborative, it makes sense to define productivity in ways that do not discourage collaboration. We hope that these results may prove to be a valuable resource, in addition to others, to those in search of an institution or department that meets their professional and scholarly needs. Finally, our field has witnessed increased involvement by authors outside of the US. Our hope is that these trends will encourage continued growth in both collaboration and international involvement within educational psychology, which will hopefully serve to strengthen our field.