Nixon, Judith M. (2014). Core Journals in Library and Information Science: Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals.

Nixon, Judith M. (2014). Core Journals in Library and Information Science: Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals. College & Research Libraries, 75(1), 66–90. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl12-387

Key Point 1: Nixon (2014) identifies a problem facing librarian authors: there is no widely accepted tiered list of journals in library and information science (LIS).

Why this point is key:

The lack of a universally accepted ranking of LIS journals prevents librarian authors from knowing which publication would be the most effective choice for authors who want to have as many people as possible read and use their research. Nixon’s (2014) list is not intended to be definitive; however, Nixon’s (2014) research describes a methodology for ranking journals that other librarian authors can use. Nixon (2014) in her literature review, identifies past efforts to create a list of top-tier journals. Some past research used expert opinion rankings so Nixon (2014) also reviewed articles that used citation analysis to create a ranking. Nixon’s (2014) defined criteria for inclusion of journals in her top-level journals list: (1) journals that are peer reviewed, (2) journals that have have high rank in an expert opinion survey, (3) journals that have a low acceptance rate and a high circulation rate, (4) “journals that Purdue University Libraries’ faculty members had published in more than two times in the last ten years,” and (5) journals with high scores from two citation ranking sources, “the Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) impact factor and the h-index calculated from Google Scholar data” (75). Nixon (2014) assigned tallies to journals based on how many of these criteria were met to develop the final list. Nixon’s research is intended to help LIS researchers decide where to attempt to publish their work.

Key Point 2: Nixon’s (2014) ranking is not definitive.

Why this point is key:

Nixon (2014) explains that her list is tailored to the needs of her institution (the Libraries of Purdue University) (67). As such this journal ranking list may not be applicable to the needs of all LIS researchers. However, Nixon (2014) is more confident about the generalizability of the methodology used in her study. It is instructive to review the criteria Nixon uses to rank the journals. This process is not mathematically intensive. Instead the author assigns tallies to journals that possess the characteristics she defined before creating the list. Each of the criteria that Nixon uses have potential benefits and drawbacks. For example, expert opinion surveys identify which publication experts in the field believe are the best, but this is an opinion not an objective statement. Nixon (2014) also provides tallies to journals in which Purdue faculty have published at least two articles recently. LIS researchers who work at other universities might find this criterion useful, but it may not be as useful to librarian authors who work in public libraries or schools. LIS researchers can use Nixon’s (2014) list as a starting point and adapt her methodology for their own use.