Equipping Social Work Faculty to Document Scholarly Impact: New Bibliometric Benchmarks for Tenure,Promotion and Other Professional Evaluations

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Bibliometrics h-index faculty tenure promotion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altomare

D. F.

Galizia

Mingoli

Raffaelli

Roviello

(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

Barner

J. R.

Holosko

M. J.

Thyer

B. 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

Bihari

Tripathi

Deepak

(2023). A review on h-index and its alternative indices. Journal of Information Science, 49(3), 624–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014478

Callanga

Ares

J. M.

Becbec

Elladora

Gabucan

Gaylan

Narca

Quibido

Quimat

R. M.

Taneo

J. K.

Sanchez

J. 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

Church

Dunn

Prokopy

(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.

Cicchetti

D. 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

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). Citation manipulation. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/citation-manipulation-discussion-document

Davis

L. D.

Gilmore

C. M.

Vargus

Ogbeifun

Chun

Y. H. P.

Frei

C. 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

Egghe

(2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7

10.

Engler

(2014). Bibliometrics and the study of religion\s. Religion, 44(2), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2014.893680

11.

Fanelli

(2020). Pressures to publish: What effects do we see. In Biagioli

Lippman

(Eds.), Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research (pp. 111–122). MIT Press.

12.

Fanelli

Larivière

(2016). Researchers’ individual publication rate has not increased in a century. PLoS One, 11(3), e0149504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149504

13.

Fassin

(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.

Figley

C. R.

Thyer

B. 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.

Goyanes

Domínguez-Díaz

Jordá

de-Marcos

(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

16.

GraphPad. (n. d.). T test calculator. Retrieved from https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest1/?format=sd

17.

Gusenbauer

(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.

Hallgren

K. 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

19.

Harzing

A. W.

(2007) Publish or Perish. Retrieved from https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish

20.

Harzing

A. W.

(2025). Everything you always wanted to know about research impact. In Ketchen Jr.

D. J.

Clark

Wright

(Eds.), How to get published in the best management journals (3rd ed., pp. 117–131). Edward Elgar Publishing.

21.

Harzing

A. W.

Alakangas

(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.

Harzing

A. W.

Alakangas

Adams

(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.

Hendrix

Koelling

Barusch

Abu-Bader

Gringeri

(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.

Hirsch

J. 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.

Hodge

D. R.

Lacasse

J. 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.

Hodge

D. R.

Lacasse

J. 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.

Hodge

D. R.

(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.

Holden

Rosenberg

Barker

(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

29.

Holosko

M. J.

(2022). Citation impact factors among social work faculty in Hong Kong. China Journal of Social Work, 15(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/17525098.2021.1883210

30.

Horney

J. A.

Bitunguramye

Shaukat

White

(2024). Gender and the h-index in epidemiology. Scientometrics, 129(7), 3725–3733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05083-3

31.

Ioannidis

J. P. A.

(2024). August data-update for “Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators. Retrieved from https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/7

32.

Ioannidis

J. P.

Maniadis

(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.

Jamjoom

A. A.

Wiggins

A. N.

Loan

J. J. M.

Emelifeoneu

Fouyas

I. P.

Brennan

P. 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

34.

Koltun

Hafner

(2021). The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLoS One, 16(6), e0253397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397

35.

Lacasse

J. R.

Hodge

D. R.

Bean

K. 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.

Light

Gullickson

Harrison

J. 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.

Loan

F. A.

Nasreen

Bashir

(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.

Macdonald

(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 Jr

Davis Smith

Green

M. T.

Anderson

Harry

S. V.

Byrd

Y. M.

Pratt-Harris

N. C.

Bolden

E. S.

Hill

(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-Martín

Orduna-Malea

Thelwall

López-Cózar

E. 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-Martín

Thelwall

Orduna-Malea

Delgado López-Cózar

(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.

Newson

King

Rychetnik

Milat

Bauman

(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.

Norouzi

Parsaei-Mohammadi

Zare-Farashbandi

Geraei

(in press). H-index and research evaluation: A suggested set of components for developing a comprehensive author-level index. Journal of Information Science.

44.

Poirrier

Moreno

Huerta-Cánepa

(2021). Robust h-index. Scientometrics, 126, 1969–1981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03857-z

45.

Said Sife

Tandi Lwoga

(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.

Sandnes

F. 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.

Schreiber

(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

48.

Seipel

M. M.

(2003). Assessing publication for tenure. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2003.10779120

49.

Smith

T. E.

Jacobs

K. S.

Osteen

P. J.

Carter

T. 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.

Spivey

C. A.

Wilks

S. 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.

Springer

M. 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.

Staller

K. 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.

Tahamtan

Safipour Afshar

Ahamdzadeh

(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.

Thyer

B. 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.

Thyer

B. A.

Smith

T. E.

Osteen

Carter

(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

56.

Tzitzikas

Dovas

(2024). How co-authorship affects the h-index? Scientometrics, 129(7), 4437–4469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05088-y

57.

US News. (2024). Best schools for social work. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-health-schools/social-work-rankings

58.

Victor

B. G.

Hodge

D. R.

Perron

B. E.

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. 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.

Wildman

W. 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