Performance of universities and academic programs has been historically analyzed based on factors such as faculty quality and research, scholarship, and publication output. However, the contribution of students as authors of academic peer-reviewed journal articles has been overlooked in these performance assessments. This commentary seeks to highlight this issue, as well as to illustrate an analytical approach to further our understanding of doctoral planning student-authored articles (SAA). Results for (1) fourteen planning-focused journals with the most SAAs, (2) Carnegie classifications of SAA institutional affiliations, and (3) the influence on journal impact factor are presented, as well as recommendations for journals, students, faculty/mentors, investigators and institutions.
Baker, Ronald L.2004. Keystones of regional accreditation: Intentions, outcomes, and sustainability. In Outcomes assessment in higher education: Views and perspectives, ed. Peter Hernon and Robert E. Dugan, 1-15. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
2.
California State University-Chico, Department of Philosophy.2008. Critical thinking assessment project . http://www.csuchico.edu/phil/ct/ct_assess.htm (Accessed March 31, 2008).
3.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.2005. The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/ (Accessed May 2005 and July 2007).
4.
Dunford, Michael, Diane Perrons, Barry Reilly, and Rebecca Bull.2002. Citations, authors and referees: Regional studies, 1981-2002. Regional Studies36:1053-65.
5.
Fox, Mary F.1983. Publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science13:285-305.
6.
Goldberger, Marvin L., Brendan A. Maher, and Pamela E. Flattau, eds. 1995. Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Report of the Committee for the Study of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States, sponsored by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, and conducted by the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
Hernon, Peter.2004. Selecting from the assessment tool chest. In Outcomes assessment in higher education: Views and perspectives, ed. Peter Hernon and Robert E. Dugan, 149-73. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
8.
Hopkins, Lewis D.2001. Planning as science: Engaging disagreement. Journal of Planning Education and Research20:399-406.
9.
Institute of Scientific Information (ISI).2005. ISI web of knowledge database. http://portal9.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi/ (Accessed May 2005).
10.
Myers, Dowell, and Tribid Banerjee .2005. Toward greater heights for planning: Reconciling the difference between profession, practice, and academic field. Journal of American Planning Association71 (2): 121-29.
11.
Nagpaul, P.S., and Santanu Roy .2003. Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance. Scientometrics56 (3): 383-402.
12.
Ostriker, Jeremiah P., and Charlotte V. Kuh, eds. 2003. Assessing research-doctorate programs: A methodology study. Report by the Committee to Examine the Methodology for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs, conducted by the Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Research Council . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13.
Packwood, Gene.1990. Issues in assessing institutional effectiveness. In Assessing institutional effectiveness in community colleges, ed. Don Doucette and Billie Hughes, 45-51. Laguna Hills, CA: League of Innovation in Community College.
14.
Ramsden, Paul.1994. Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education28 (2): 207-26.
15.
---. 1999. Predicting institutional research performance from published indicators: A test of a classification of Australian University types. Higher Education37 (4): 341-58.
16.
Rey, Sergio J., and Luc Anselin .2000. Regional science publication patterns in the 1990s. International Regional Science Review23:323-44.
17.
Smart, John C., and Gerald W. McLaughlin .1985. administrative service and research performance: A study of chemistry department heads. Research in Higher Education22 (1): 31-42.
18.
Stack. Steven.2004. Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education45 (8): 891-920.
19.
Stiftel, Bruce.2001. Introduction. Journal of Planning Education and Research20:397-98.
20.
Stiftel, Bruce, Deden Rukmana, and Bhuiyan Alam.2004. Faculty quality at U.S. graduate planning schools: A National Research Council-style study. Journal of Planning Education and Research24:6-22.
21.
Strathman, James G.1992. Analysis of theoretical, methodological and empirical research in the Journal of Regional Science. Journal of Regional Science32:501-09.
22.
Surinach, J., J.C. Duque, R. Ramos, and V. Royuela.2003. Publication patterns in regional and urban analysis: Have topics, techniques and applications changed during the 1990s?Regional Studies37:351-63.
23.
Taylor, Jim, and Jill Johnes.1992. The citation record of regional studies and related journals, 1980-89. Regional Studies26:93-97.
24.
Webster, Chris.2006. Editorial. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33:485-90.
