Three Commonly Utilized Scholarly Databases and a Social Network Site Provide Different, But Related, Metrics of Pharmacy Faculty Publication

Kyle J. Burghardt, Bradley H. Howlett, Audrey S. Khoury, Stephanie M. Fern and Paul R. Burghardt
Additional contact information
Kyle J. Burghardt: Wayne State University Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 259 Mack Avenue, Suite 2190, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
Bradley H. Howlett: Wayne State University Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 259 Mack Avenue, Suite 2190, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
Audrey S. Khoury: Wayne State University Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 259 Mack Avenue, Suite 2190, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
Stephanie M. Fern: Wayne State University Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 259 Mack Avenue, Suite 2190, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
Paul R. Burghardt: Wayne State University Nutrition and Food Sciences, Science Hall, 5045 Cass Ave. Detroit, MI 48202, USA

Publications, 2020, vol. 8, issue 2, 1-10

Abstract: Scholarly productivity is a critical component of pharmacy faculty effort and is used for promotion and tenure decisions. Several databases are available to measure scholarly productivity; however, comparisons amongst these databases are lacking for pharmacy faculty. The objective of this work was to compare scholarly metrics from three commonly utilized databases and a social networking site focused on data from research-intensive colleges of pharmacy and to identify factors associated with database differences. Scholarly metrics were obtained from Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate for faculty from research-intensive (Carnegie Rated R1, R2, or special focus) United States pharmacy schools with at least two million USD in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Metrics were compared and correlations were performed. Regression analyses were utilized to identify factors associated with database differences. Significant differences in scholarly metric values were observed between databases despite the high correlations, suggestive of systematic variation in database reporting. Time since first publication was the most common factor that was associated with database differences. Google Scholar tended to have higher metrics than all other databases, while Web of Science had lower metrics relative to other databases. Differences in reported metrics between databases are apparent, which may be attributable to the time since first publication and database coverage of pharmacy-specific journals. These differences should be considered by faculty, reviewers, and administrative staff when evaluating scholarly performance.

Keywords: pharmacy; faculty; bibliometrics; database; citations (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A2 D83 L82 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/8/2/18/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/8/2/18/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:18-:d:339970

Access Statistics for this article

Publications is currently edited by Ms. Jennifer Zhang

More articles in Publications from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().