After critiquing the methods Pardeck and Meinert use to assess scholarly output among a small sample of editorial board members, the author questions the expenditure of faculty time and energy on studies that are largely keyboard-driven expeditions used to spy on colleagues and their home institutions. Such is the stuff of shallow science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, D. (1991). On line bibliometric analysis for researchers and educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 41-47.
2.
Hamilton, D. P. (1990). Publishing by and for?—the numbers. Science, 250, 1331-1332, 4986.
3.
Kreuger, L. W. (1993). There should be a moratorium on articles that rank schools of social work based on faculty productivity. Journal of Social Work Education, 29, 240-252.
4.
Kreuger, L. W., & Stretch, J. (1997, September). Is hypertechnology destroying social work? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Conference on Information Technology in Social Work Education, Charleston, SC.
5.
Murphy, R. (1997). Sociology and nature: Social action in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
6.
Pardeck, J. T., & Meinert, R. G. (1999). Scholarly achievements of theSocial Work editorial board and consulting editors: A commentary. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(1), 86-91.
7.
Starr, P. (1982). Social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.
