Purpose: This study assists social work faculty to document their scholarly impact by articulating new bibliometric benchmarks for tenure, promotion, and other professional evaluations. Method: Coders collected data on the h-, g-, hi-norm, and the hi-annual indices on tenure-track faculty in the top 40 schools according to US News. Results: Faculty with earned social work doctorates recorded lower values across all four indices compared to those with other doctorates. For each index, benchmarks were calculated for assistant, associate, and full social work professors in each quartile. Analysis revealed h-index values in the top 10 schools had more than doubled from 2010 to 2025 across all ranks. The most impactful faculty were rank ordered using each index, with different indices producing a different ordering. Discussion: The findings illustrate the importance of disciplinary bibliometric benchmarks. Of the four indices, hi-annual may provide the fairest assessment of scholarly impact within, and possibly across, ranks.
AltomareD. F.GaliziaG.MingoliA.RaffaelliM.RovielloF. (2023). Scientific requisites for academic advancements in Italy: Time to change the rules. Updates in Surgery, 75(6), 1419–1422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01612-6
2.
BarnerJ. R.HoloskoM. J.ThyerB. A. (2014). American social work and psychology faculty members’ scholarly productivity: A controlled comparison of citation impact using the h-index. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(8), 2448–2458. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct161
3.
BihariA.TripathiS.DeepakA. (2023). A review on h-index and its alternative indices. Journal of Information Science, 49(3), 624–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014478
4.
CallangaC.AresJ. M.BecbecJ.ElladoraS.GabucanJ.GaylanE.NarcaM.QuibidoJ.QuimatR. M.TaneoJ. K.SanchezJ. M. P. (2024). Empowering doctoral students: The role of publish or perish software in enhancing systematic reviews in science education. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 28(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2024.2384021
5.
ChurchS.DunnM.ProkopyL. (2019). Benefits to qualitative data quality with multiple coders: Two case studies in multi-coder data analysis. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 34(1), 1–14.
6.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
DavisL. D.GilmoreC. M.VargusA.OgbeifunH.ChunY. H. P.FreiC. R. (2025). Comparison of h-index and other bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus for articles published by translational science trainees. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 153. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04462-2
FanelliD. (2020). Pressures to publish: What effects do we see. In BiagioliM.LippmanA. (Eds.), Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research (pp. 111–122). MIT Press.
FassinY. (2023). The ha-index: The average citation h-index. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(3), 756–777. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00259
14.
FigleyC. R.ThyerB. A. (2023). Pathways to becoming a full professor: Guidelines for associate professors. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 43(5), 618–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2023.2263887
15.
GoyanesM.Domínguez-DíazA.JordáB.de-MarcosL. (2025). Gender gap in citations, h-index, and representation: Examining the highly cited authors across continents and disciplines in Google Scholar. PLoS One, 20(11), e0334690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334690
GusenbauerM. (2024). Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases’ citation indices. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(5), 802–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1729
18.
HallgrenK. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
HarzingA. W. (2025). Everything you always wanted to know about research impact. In Ketchen Jr.D. J.ClarkT.WrightM. (Eds.), How to get published in the best management journals (3rd ed., pp. 117–131). Edward Elgar Publishing.
21.
HarzingA. W.AlakangasS. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
22.
HarzingA. W.AlakangasS.AdamsD. (2014). Hia: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics, 99, 811–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1208-0
23.
HendrixE.KoellingE.BaruschA.Abu-BaderS.GringeriC. (2025). Are we advancing the quality of social work research?: An assessment of quantitative research published in social work journals. Journal of Social Work, 25(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173241283696
24.
HirschJ. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
25.
HodgeD. R.LacasseJ. R. (2011). Ranking disciplinary journals with the Google Scholar h-index: A new tool for constructing cases for tenure, promotion, and other professional decisions. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2011.201000024
26.
HodgeD. R.LacasseJ. R. (2014). Does citation analysis help or hinder the professional development of social workers and their profession? A reply to slater, scourfield, and sloan. British Journal of Social Work, 44(2), 469–472. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct183
27.
HodgeD. R.YuM. (2025). What factors inform decisions about where to submit high-quality scholarship? A national sample of social work faculty share their perspectives. Social Work Research, 49(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svae028
28.
HoldenG.RosenbergG.BarkerK. (2005). Tracing thought through time and space: A selective review of bibliometrics in social work. Social Work in Health Care, 41(3–4), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v41n03_01
IoannidisJ. P.ManiadisZ. (2024). Quantitative research assessment: Using metrics against gamed metrics. Internal and Emergency Medicine, 19(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-023-03447-w
33.
JamjoomA. A.WigginsA. N.LoanJ. J. M.EmelifeoneuJ.FouyasI. P.BrennanP. M. (2016). Academic productivity of neurosurgeons working in the United Kingdom: Insights from the h-index and its variants. World Neurosurgery, 86, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.041
LacasseJ. R.HodgeD. R.BeanK. F. (2011). Evaluating the productivity of social work scholars using the h-index. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(5), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731511405069
36.
LightR.GullicksonA.HarrisonJ. A. (2025). Inequality in measuring scholarly success: Variation in the h-index within and between disciplines. PLoS One, 20(1), e0316913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316913
37.
LoanF. A.NasreenN.BashirB. (2022). Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar h-index?Library Hi Tech, 40(3), 676–684. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-04-2021-0141
38.
MacdonaldS. (2022). The gaming of citation and authorship in academic journals: A warning from medicine. Social Science Information, 61(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184221142218
39.
Marshall JrI.Davis SmithB.GreenM. T.AndersonB.HarryS. V.ByrdY. M.Pratt-HarrisN. C.BoldenE. S.HillS. (2016). Scholarly productivity of social work faculty at historically black colleges and universities: Are h-index scores a suitable measure?Journal of Social Work Education, 52(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1112645
40.
Martín-MartínA.Orduna-MaleaE.ThelwallM.López-CózarE. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
41.
Martín-MartínA.ThelwallM.Orduna-MaleaE.Delgado López-CózarE. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
42.
NewsonR.KingL.RychetnikL.MilatA.BaumanA. (2018). Looking both ways: A review of methods for assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0310-4
43.
NorouziA.Parsaei-MohammadiP.Zare-FarashbandiF.Zare-FarashbandiE.GeraeiE. (in press). H-index and research evaluation: A suggested set of components for developing a comprehensive author-level index. Journal of Information Science.
Said SifeA.Tandi LwogaE. (2014). Publication productivity and scholarly impact of academic librarians in Tanzania: A scientometric analysis. New Library World, 115(11/12), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-04-2014-0038
46.
SandnesF. E. (2020). A simple back-of-the-envelope test for self-citations using Google Scholar author profiles. Scientometrics, 124(2), 1685–1689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03521-6
47.
SchreiberM. (2008). A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001
SmithT. E.JacobsK. S.OsteenP. J.CarterT. E. (2018). Comparing the research productivity of social work doctoral programs using the h-index. Scientometrics, 116, 1513–1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2832-5
50.
SpiveyC. A.WilksS. E. (2004). Reference list accuracy in social work journals. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(4), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731503262131
51.
SpringerM. L. (2018, June 24–27). Tenure as a closed system: Subconscious behavioral characteristics of coercion, groupthink, bias and inherent discrimination. [Paper presentation ID# 21474]. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.
52.
StallerK. M. (2022). Beware the kudzu: Corporate creep, university consumers, and epistemic injustice. Qualitative Social Work, 21(4), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250221106639
53.
TahamtanI.Safipour AfsharA.AhamdzadehK. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2
54.
ThyerB. A. (2002). Developing discipline-specific knowledge for social work: Is it possible?Journal of Social Work Education, 38(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2002.10779085
55.
ThyerB. A.SmithT. E.OsteenP.CarterT. (2019). The 100 most influential contemporary social work faculty as assessed by the h-index. Journal of Social Service Research, 45(5), 696–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2018.1501793
VictorB. G.HodgeD. R.PerronB. E.VaughnM. G.Salas-WrightC. P. (2017). The rise of co-authorship in social work scholarship: A longitudinal study of collaboration and article quality, 1989–2013. British Journal of Social Work, 47(8), 2201–2216. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw059
59.
WildmanW. J. (2021). The academic study of religion in bibliometric perspective. Bulletin for the Study of Religion, 50(3), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.21127
