Date of this Version
Aksnes, D. W. (2003). A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 235-246. Assisi, F. C. (2005). Anurag Acharya Helped Google’s Scholarly Leap. Retrieved 2 July, 2011 from http://www.indolink.com/SciTech/fr010305-075445.php
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? – A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271.
Batista, Pablo D., Campiteli, Monica G., Kinouchi, Osame, & Martinez, Alexandre S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179-189.
Boswell, W. (2010). Retrieved 25 June 2010 from http://websearch.about.com/od/ enginesanddirectories/tp/The-Top-Ten-Search-Engines-Of-2010.htm
Cronin, B. & Meho, L. I. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278.
Dimitroff, A. (1995). Self-citation in the Library and Information Science literature. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 44-56.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index, Scientometrics, 69 (1), 131-152.
Fowler, J. H. & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72(3), 427-437.
Gianoli, E. & Molina-Montenegro, M. A. (2009). Insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1283-1285.
Hartley, J. (2012). To cite or not to cite: Author self-citations and the impact factor. Scientometrics, 92, 313-317.
Harzing, A.W. (2011). Publish or Perish. Available at http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0508025v5.pdf
Khan, M. S. I.; Ahmed, S. M. Z.; Munshi, M. N. U. & Akhter, N. (1998). Library and information science literature in Bangladesh: A bibliometric study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 3(2), 11-34.
Khey, D. N., Jennings, W. G., Higgins, G. E. Shoepfer, A. & Langton, L. (2011). Re-ranking the top female academic “Stars” in criminology and criminal justice using an alternative method: a research note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 118-129.
Kuhn, Eric. (2009). "CNN Politics – Political Ticker... Google unveils top political searches of 2009". CNN. Retrieved February 1, 2011.
Long, H., Boggess, L. N. & Jennings, W. G. (2011). Re-Assessing publication productivity among academic “stars” in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 102-117.
McCallum, M. L. (2010). Characetrizing author citation ratings of herpetologists using Harzing’s Publish or Perish. Herpetology Notes, 3, 239-245.
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170-180.
Razzaque, M. A. & Wilkinson, I. F. (2007). Research Performance of Senior Level Marketing Academics in the Australian Universities: An Exploratory Study Based on Citation Analysis. Paper Presented at Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC), University of Otago, New Zealand, Dec 1-3 2007.
Sidirpoulos, A., Katsaros, D., and Manolopoulos, Y. (2006). Generalized h- index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0607066v1.pdf
Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2008). A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317-330.
Zhang, Chun-Ting (2009). The e-Index, complementing the h-Index for excess citations. PLoS One, 5 (5), e5429.
Zhivotovsky, L. A. & Krutovsky, K. V. (2008). Self-citation can inflate h-index. Scientometrics, 77(2), 373-375.
The ranking of universities and journals have been the focus of the scholarly community. These rankings are used as a marketing tool for attracting new comers to the universities and for authors to the journals. As a consequence, ranking of authors/faculty in a field of study has also become popular which can be used as a useful tool for awards, promotion, recruitment, recognition, etc. Citations to scholarly writings have been used to develop a number of quantitative measures to determine their impact on the literature of a topic. This paper investigated the impact of 53 LIS faculty from eight Pakistani universities. The data were collected during July 2011 using Google Scholar database. Only 11 out of 53 faculty members contributed 118 publications which received 536 citations. The h-index, g-index, hc-index, hI-norm, and e-index, were used to determine the impact of these authors. The scatter of their publications in various journals was determined and the most cited publication of each author was identified. The number of faculty members who received citations is small and their scores in various indices are generally low. There is a need for these faculty members to publish in impact factor journals in order to get more citations and higher scores.