This study is part of a program aimed at creating measures enabling a fairer and more complete assessment of a scholar's contribution to a field, thus bringing greater rationality and transparency to the promotion and tenure process. It finds current approaches toward the evaluation of research productivity to be simplistic, atheoretic, and biased toward reinforcing existing reputation and power structures. This study examines the use of the Hirsch family of indices, a robust and theoretically informed metric, as an addition to prior approaches to assessing the scholarly influence of IS researchers. It finds that while the top tier journals are important indications of a scholar's impact, they are neither the only nor, indeed, the most important sources of scholarly influence. Other ranking studies, by narrowly bounding the venues included in those studies, distort the discourse and effectively privilege certain venues by declaring them to be more highly influential than warranted. The study identifies three different categories of scholars: those who publish primarily in North American journals, those who publish primarily in European journals, and a transnational set of authors who publish in both geographies. Excluding the transnational scholars, for the scholars who published in these journal sets during the period of this analysis, we find that North American scholars tend to be more influential than European scholars, on average. We attribute this difference to a difference in the publication culture of the different geographies. This study also suggests that the influence of authors who publish in the European journal set is concentrated at a moderate level of influence, while the influence of those who publish in the North American journal set is dispersed between those with high influence and those with relatively low influence. Therefore, to be a part of the top European scholar list requires a higher level of influence than to be a part of the top North American scholar list.

Assessing the research capital that a scholar has accrued is an essential task for academic administrators, funding agencies, and promotion and tenure committees worldwide. Scholars have criticized the existing methodology of counting papers in ranked journals and made calls to replace it (Adler & Harzing, 2009; Singh, Haddad, & Chow, 2007). In its place, some have made calls to assess the uptake of a scholar's work instead of assessing "quality" (Truex, Cuellar, Takeda, & Vidgen, 2011a). We identify three dimensions of scholarly capital (ideational influence (who uses one's work?), connectedness (with whom does one work?) and venue representation (where does one publish their work?)) in this paper as part of a scholarly capital model (SCM). We develop measurement models for the three dimensions of scholarly capital and test the relationships in a path model. We show how one might use the measures to evaluate scholarly research activity.

No abstract