Оценка научной продуктивности в зарубежном библиотековедении как составная часть измерения эффективности библиотеки

П. С. Романов
Библиосфера. — 2015. — » 2. — С. 3-9

Аннотация
Представлены результаты исследования по оценке баз данных и других источников информации, а также различных методов их исследования, применяемых в библиотековедении с целью ранжирования научной продуктивности библиотековедов США, а также преподавателей факультетов библиотековедения и информационных технологий. Идентифицированы методы и подходы к высокоточному ран-жированию научной продуктивности или публикационной активности библиотековедов и преподавателей библиотечных вузов.

Ключевые слова: база данных, научная продуктивность, ранжирование, цитируемость, публикационная
активность профессорско-преподавательского состава, эффективность деятельности библиотековедов и библиотечных учреждений.
Литература
1. Нохрина В. А. Оценочные исследования в библио¬теках и измерение качества библиотечных услуг // Библиотечное дело–2013 : материалы XVIII между-нар. науч. конф. (24–25 апр. 2013 г.). – М., 2013. – Ч. 1. – С. 76.
2. Романов П. С. Аналитическая характеристика документного потока англоязычных диссертаций в области библиотековедения (по материалам США и Ка¬нады) : дис. … канд. пед. наук / Моск. гос. ун-т куль-туры и искусств. – М., 2006. – 220 с.
3. Романов П. С. Библиотековедение зарубежных стран во второй половине XX – начале XXI века. – М. : Хлебпродинформ, 2012. – 122 с.
4. Столяров Ю. Н. Анализ научной книги на основе закона Брэдфорда (на примере библиотечного фон-доведения) // Научная книга на постсоветском пространстве : материалы II междунар. науч. конф. (Москва, 19–21 сент. 2007 г.). – М., 2007. – Ч. 1. – С. 223–226.
5. Blake V. L. P., Tjoumas R. Research as a factor in fa¬culty evaluation: the rules are a-changin’ // Journal of Education for Library and Information Science. – 1988. – Vol. 31, № 1. – P. 3–24.
6. Bates M. J. The role of publication type in the evaluation of LIS programs // Library & Information Science Re-search. – 1998. – Vol. 20, № 2. – P. 187–198.
7. Boyce B. R., Hendren C. Authorship as a measure of the productivity of schools of library and information sci-ence // Journal of Education for Library and Information Science. – 1996. – Vol. 37, № 3. – P. 250–271.
8. Brace W. Quality assessment of library and information science school faculties // Education for Information. – 1992. – Vol. 10, № 2. – P. 115–123.
9. Budd J. M. Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty: an update // The Library Quarterly. – 2000. – Vol. 70, № 2. – P. 230–245.
10. Budd J. M., Seavey C. A. Productivity of U.S. library and information science faculty: the Hayes study revisited // The Library Quarterly. – 1996. – Vol. 66, № 1. – P. 1–20.
11. Coblans H. The literature of librarianship and documen-tation: the periodicals and their bibliographical control // Journal of Documentation. – 1972. – Vol. 28, № 1. – P. 56–66.
12. Cole S., Cole J. R. Scientific output and recognition // American Sociological Review. – 1967. – Vol. 32, № 3. – P. 377–390.
13. Cole S., Cole J. R. Visibility and the structural bases of awareness of scientific research // American Sociolo¬gical Review. – 1968. – Vol. 33, № 3. – P. 397–413.
14. Cronin B. Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on Web-based citation analysis // Journal of Information Science. – 2001. – Vol. 27, № 1. – P. 1–7.
15. Cronin B., Overfelt K. Citation-based auditing of aca-demic performance // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. – 1994. – Vol. 45, № 2. – P. 61–72.
16. Danton J. P. Notes on the evaluation of library schools // Journal of Education for Librarianship. – 1983. – Vol. 24, № 2. – P. 106–116.
17. Elsbach K. D., Kramer R. M. Members’ responses to organizational identities: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings // Administrative Science Quarterly. – 1997. – Vol. 41, № 3. – P. 442–476.
18. Ernest D. J., Lange H. R., Herring D. An online com-parison of three library science databases // RQ. – 1988. – Vol. 28, № 2. – P. 185–194.
19. Fogarty T. J., Saftner D. V. Academic department pres-tige: A new measure based on the doctoral student labor market // Research in Higher Education. – 1993. – Vol. 34, № 4. – P. 427–449.
20. Garland K. The nature of publications authored by li-brary and information science faculty // Library and In-formation Science Research. – 1991. – Vol. 13, № 1. – P. 49–60.
21. Gilbert G. N. Measuring the growth of science: a review of indicators of scientific growth // Scientometrics. – 1978. – Vol. 1, № 1. – P. 9–34.
22. Gluck M. A review of journal coverage overlap with an extension to the definition of overlap // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. – 1990. – Vol. 41, № 1. – P. 43–60.
23. Hawkins D. T., Miller B. On-line data base coverage of the online information-retrieval literature // Online Re-view. – 1977. – Vol. 1, № 1. – P. 59–64.
24. Hayes R. M. Citation statistics as a measure of faculty research productivity // Journal of Education for Libra¬rianship. – 1983. – Vol. 23, № 3. – P. 151–172.
25. LaBorie T., Halperin M. The ERIC and LISA databases: How the sources of library science literature compare // Database. – 1981. – Vol. 4, № 3. – P. 32–37.
26. LaBorie T., Halperin M., White H. D. Library and in-formation science abstracting and indexing services: co¬verage, overlap, and context // Library & Information Science Research. – 1985. – Vol. 7, № 2. – P. 183–195.
27. Machung A. Playing the rankings game // Change. – 1998. – Vol. 30, № 4. – P. 12–16.
28. College rankings: democratized college knowledge for whom? / P. M. McDonough [et al.] // Research in Higher Education. – 1998. – Vol. 39, № 5. – P. 513–537.
29. Meho L. I., Spurgin K. M. Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: an evaluation of data sources and research methods // Journal of the American Society for information science and Technology. – 2005. – Vol. 56, № 12. – P. 1314–1331.
30. Monks J., Ehrenberg R. G. U.S. News and World Re-port’s college rankings: why do they matter? // Change. – 1999. – Vol. 31, № 6. – P. 42–52.
31. Mulvaney J. P. The characteristics associated with per-ceived quality in schools of library and information science // The Library Quarterly. – 1992. – Vol. 62, № 1. – P. 1–27.
32. Mulvaney J. P. The characteristics associated with per-ceived quality in schools of library and information sci-ence: an update and prediction // The Library Quarterly. – 1993. – Vol. 63, № 2. – P. 189–191.
33. Nisonger T. E. Citation autobiography: an investigation of ISI database coverage in determining author citedness // College and Research Libraries. – 2004. – Vol. 65, № 2. – P. 152–163.
34. Pettigrew K. E., Nicholls P. T. Publication patterns of LIS faculty from 1982–1992: effects of doctoral pro-grams // Library & Information Science Research. – 1994. – Vol. 16, № 2. – P. 139–156.
35. Read E. J., Smith R. C. Searching for library and infor-mation science literature: a comparison of coverage in three databases // Library Computing. – 2000. – Vol. 19, № 1/2. – P. 118–126.
36. Reed K. L. Citation analysis of faculty publication: Be-yond Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index // Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. – 1995. – Vol. 83, № 4. – P. 503–508.
37. Roush W. Grad schools ratings rankle // Science. – 1995. – Vol. 269, № 5231. – P. 1660–1662.
38. Smith L. C. Citation analysis // Library Trends. – 1981. – Vol. 30, № 1. – P. 83–106.
39. Stock W. A., Alston R. M. Effect of graduate-program rank on success in the job market // Journal of Economic Education. – 2000. – Vol. 31, № 4. – P. 389–401.
40. U.S. News and World Report. Library science: top schools. Retrieved 1999. URL: http://www.usnews. com/usnews/edu/beyond/bcinfos.htm.
41. Van Raan A. F. J. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer-review based evaluation and foresight exercises // Scientometrics. – 1996. – Vol. 36, № 3. – P. 397–420.
42. Varlejs J., Dalrymple P. Publication output of library and information science faculty // Journal of Education for Library and Information Science. – 1986. – Vol. 27, № 1. – P. 71–89.
43. Wallace D. P. The most productive faculty // Library Journal. – 1990. – Vol. 115, № 8. – P. 61–63.
44. White H. D. Author co-citation analysis: overview and defense // Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. – Newbury Park, CA, 1990. – P. 84–106.
45. White H. S. Rankings of library and information science faculty and programs: The third in a series of studies un¬dertaken at six-year intervals // The Library Quarterly. – 1993. – Vol. 63, № 2. – P. 166–188.
46. Wilson P. Factors affecting research productivity // Journal of Education for Library and Information Sci-ence. – 1979. – Vol. 20, № 1. – P. 3–24.
47. Yerkey A. A cluster analysis of several patterns among bibliographic databases // Journal of the American So¬ciety for Information Science. – 1983. – Vol. 34, № 5. – P. 350–355.