Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Publications, citations and h-index are three quantitative measures of scholarly productivity commonly used to evaluate university academic staff members. The quantity and quality of an individual's publication record is often an integral part of promotion and tenure decisions as well as post-tenure notoriety and awards. In this study, the Scopus database was queried to provide information on the scholarly productivity of 83 mining engineering academic staff members at accredited mining engineering schools in the United States. The data retrieved in this study include the number of publications, number of citations and h-index, for each individual academic staff member. Data for individual academic staff members was then classified by academic level/rank, institution and primary research sub-discipline to produce meaningful comparative results. The data show that the average number of publications per academic increases from 4 to 22 to 49 for assistant professors, associate professors and professors, respectively. Citations (9–83–290) and h-index (1–3–6) follow similar trends. Further analysis indicates that mineral processing and mine electrical systems are the most highly cited sub-disciplines. When aggregated by academic institution, the data show that the productivity of academic staff is linked to Carnegie Research classification. Finally, the data show a clear Pareto tendency with the highest 20% of academic staff members contributing 80% of the overall citations.

Keywords

Mining engineering education Publications Citations Scholarly productivity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). 2015. Accreditation. Available at: < http://www.abet.org/accreditation> [Accessed 7 May 2015]..

Bakkalbasi

, Bauer

, Glover

and Wang

2006. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science, Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, (1), 7.

Bar-Ilan

2008. Which h-index? – A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74, (2), 257–271.

Carnegie. 2015. The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher learning. Available at: < http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/ [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Engineering Trends. 2007. A comprehensive statistical study of education trends in three disciplines closely linked to energy-producing industries – mining, nuclear and petroleum engineering. Available at: < http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/1107C.php> [Accessed 27 November 2011].

Fairweather

J. S.

2002. The mythologies of faculty productivity: implications for institutional policy and decision making, Journal of Higher Education, 73, 26–48.

Falagas

M. E.

, Pitsouni

E. I.

, Malietzis

G. A.

and Pappas

2008. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses, The FASEB Journal, 22, (2), 338–342.

Gibbons

M. T.

2009. Engineering by the numbers, Washington, DC, American Society for Engineering Education.

Hasselback

J. R.

, Reinstein

and Schwan

E. S.

2000. Benchmarks for evaluating the research productivity of accounting faculty, Journal of Accounting Education, 18, (2), 79–97.

10.

Kecojevic

, Grayson

R. L.

, Saperstein

and Karmis

2008. Accreditation of mining engineering programs – the ABET experience, Mineral Resources Engineering, 13, (2), 85–106.

11.

McCarter

M. K.

2007. Mining faculty in the United States: current status and sustainability, Mining Engineering, 59, (9), 28–56.

12.

McCormick

A. C.

and Zhao

C. M.

2005. Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification, Change, 37, (5), 51–57.

13.

Meho

L. I.

and Spurgin

K. M.

2005. Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: an evaluation of data sources and research methods, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, (12), 1314–1331.

14.

Meho

L. I.

and Yang

2007. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: web of science versus Scopus and Google Scholar, Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology, 58, (13), 2105–2125.

15.

Meho

L. I.

and Rogers

2008. Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, (11), 1711–1726.

16.

Poulton

2012. Analysis of the mining engineering faculty pipeline, in Proceedings of the 2012 SME Annual Meeting, Preprint No 12-090, Englewood, Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration. 6 p.

17.

Saydam

and Kecojevic

2014. Publication strategies for academic career development in mining engineering, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy Section A Mining Technology, 123, (1), 46–55.

18.

Sevim

and Honaker

2012. Review of the evolution of mining engineering curriculum in the US, Mining Engineering, 64, (99), 27–35.

19.

Scopus. 2015. Content overview. Available at: < http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview> [Accessed 19 March 2015]..

20.

SME. 2014. SME guide to mineral and material science schools, Englewood, Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration. 150 p.

21.

Yoder

B. L.

2014. Engineering by the numbers, Washington, DC, American Society for Engineering Education.

Analysis of research scholarship for academic staff at US ABET accredited mining engineering schools by publications,citations and h -index

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References