Analyzing the collective opinion of presumed experts, often termed a perception study, is a frequently used approach for rating journals or evaluating education programs. Replicating the 1985 Kohl-Davis study, seventy-one library and information science (LIS) journals are ranked according to their mean rating on a 1 to 5 ordinal scale by deans of ALA-accredited education programs and by the directors of ARL libraries (surveyed during the summer of 2003). Comparison of the results with the 1985 study found considerable continuity in journal perceptions over the past two decades, but more so by directors than deans. A weak to moderate correlation was found between deans' ratings and Journal Citation Reports citation scores, whereas the correlations between directors' perceptions and citation data were weak to nonexistent. The findings confirm a hierarchy of prestige among LIS journals, but the hierarchical order differs somewhat between deans and directors. lthough, in theory, every research article should be judged on its own merits, the journal in which it is published o en serves as a proxy indicator of research quality. The evaluation of scholarly journals is important for selection and cancellation decisions by librarians, the evaluation of faculty and librarians for promotion and tenure as well as annual performance reviews, manuscript submission decisions by authors, monitoring of their journals by editors and publishers, and familiarizing new doctoral students or outsiders (such as members of a university-wide promotion and tenure commi ee evaluating faculty from other departments) with a field's journals.

This column examines the 80/20 rule, also termed a Pareto distribution, and explains these terms' historical origins. The column focuses on this pattern in the use of print serials, downloads from electronic databases, and citations to journals. The rule's relationship to Bradford's Law is explored, and some of the research pertaining to the 80/20 rule is reviewed. The pattern's utility for defining the core collection and serials collection management is discussed, whereas a number of limitations are pointed out. Some questions for further research are suggested. It is concluded that the 80/20 ratio (80% of use is derived from 20% of the titles), Thomas E. Nisonger is Professor Emeritus, ). He holds an MLS from the University of Pittsburgh and a PhD in political science from Columbia University. I thank my graduate assistant in Indiana University's School of Library and Information Science, Suzanne Switzer, for her assistance with this column in a variety of ways, including helping search the literature for specific examples of library usage patterns, helping compile the tables, and verifying citations. Downloaded by [Queensland University of Technology] at 20:42 13 October 2014 Serials in the Core Collection 63when found as an approximate pattern, is a valid method for determining the core concept in journal collection management.

The concept of journal ranking is explained along with the theoretical and practical significance of ranking journals. An eight‐variable model for classifying journal‐ranking studies is outlined. A review of LIS journal rankings of the last half‐century identifies 178 published between 1952 and 1997. The majority of these used some type of citation measure, followed by rankings based on production, subjective judgment, and reading, respectively. Analysis of JASIS's, and its immediate predecessor, American Documentation's, position in these rankings, found that they were logically excluded from 18. In the remaining 160, they ranked first in 20 and in the top five in 88. It is noted that JASIS also appears on many lists of “core” LIS journals, and that it has been the object of investigation in numerous studies.

No abstract