Citation Impact Factors Among Faculty in Canadian Social Work Programs

Abstract

We report impact data on faculty (N ¼ 454) working in 30 of Canada's accredited social work programs during 2016. Method: Using the Publish or Perish website, faculty member's h and g indices, and their most frequently cited articles published in the last decade were analyzed both individually and by school. Findings: (a) computed h scores were R a 0.8-11.9, M ¼ 4.4 and g scores were R a 1.3-21.3, M ¼ 7.7; (b) the top-ranked citation impact for programs were the University of Toronto, Dalhousie University, and the University of British Columbia; (c) larger programs had significantly higher citation impact for both h and g scores than smaller programs; (d) 17 (27%) of these authors had 10-year citation counts ranging from 176 to 666; and (e) their topics related to children/youth/adolescents (35%) and health care (35%). Discussion: Based on our work in this area, we offer some constructive recommendations to Canadian social work programs and faculty.

Who are the Top 100 Contributors to Social Work Journal Scholarship? A Global Study on Career Impact in the Profession

“…Several implications flow from the study's results. Collaborative mentoring relationships play a critical role in advancing scientific progress (Holosko et al, 2018). The present study adds to the emerging literature identifying leading scholars in social work.…”

“…In social work, the h-index-calculated by harvesting citations from Google Scholar-has been widely used to identify prominent faculty and their associated characteristics (Huggins-Hoyt, 2018). More specifically, this general measure has been used to examine faculty dissemination of impactful scholarship in Australia (Tilbury et al, 2022), Canada (Holosko et al, 2018), Hong Kong (Holosko, 2022), and the United States (Thyer et al, 2019). The Google Scholar h-index has also been used to identify the top Fellows affiliated with the Society for Social Work and Research and the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (Hodge et al, 2016).…”

Comparing reputation vs h-index rankings of doctoral programs

“…The amount of times an article is cited is a measure of impact, but not necessarily a measure of quality or importance. Despite its shortcomings, the h-index has been deemed as the " 'gold standard' for assessing scholarship in North American universities" (Holosko et al, 2017), hence it is use in our analysis.…”

“…This measure alone has been critiqued by Thyer and Polk (1997), who asserted "one thing which is clear to us is the need for social work academics to publish more, and moreover to publish more articles relevant to practice and worthy of being cited by other scholars" (p. 108). In this regard, the h-index has been lauded as a measure of both academic productivity and quality by social work scholars (Holosko et al, 2017). To date, no recent studies have compared current faculty h-index scores with the most recently updated USNWR rankings of social work programs.…”

Leveling the Playing Field

“…According to Zerden et al (2015), though mentoring is recognized as the most common form of faculty development, it is scarce in many institutions. Holosko et al (2018) indicates that formal mentoring programs are absent in many schools of social work. Further, few institutions are noted to provide formal mentorship supports to new instructors (Brady & Spencer, 2018).…”