Skip to main content
Log in

Research productivity, university revenue, and scholarly impact (citations) of 169 British, Canadian and United States universities (1977)

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One hundred and sixty-nine universities, comprising three separate samples from Britain, Canada, and the United States were evaluated in terms of their productivity across all disciplines. The 1977Arts and Humanities, Social Science, andScience Citation Indices were used as the basis for counting the total number of publications from each of the universities. The 10 overall most productive universities were Harvard University; the University of Texas; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of London, England; the University of Wisconsin; the University of Illinois; the University of Minnesota; the University of California, Berkeley; Stanford University; and the University of Washington, Seattle. Fifteen of the most productive 100 universities were from the United Kingdom while eleven were from Canada. Additional data were collected including: the revenue of the university, the year the university was founded, the number of subscriptions to current periodicals, the number of bound volumes in the library, the aptitude scores and number of both graduate and undergraduate students, the total number of faculty members, and the number of publications of, reputational rating, and citations to, the faculty members in the psychology departments. A powerful general factor was found to permeate the more than 30 disparate measures, i.e., those universities that were high on one measure were high on others. This general factor could be labelled a dimension of wealth, quality, or size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and references

  1. A. M. CARTER,An assessment of quality in graduate education, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. D. ROOSE, C. J. ANDERSEN,A rating of graduate programs, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. D. ROOSE, C. J. ANDERSEN,ibid..

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. T. HARTNETT, M. J. CLARK, L. BAIRD, Reputational ratings of doctoral programs,Science, 199 (1978) 1310–1314.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. C. ANDERSON, F. NARIN, P. McALLISTER, Publication ratings versus peer ratings of universities.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29 (1978) 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Science Citation Index, S.C.I. Copyright Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

  7. N. S. ENDLER, J. P. RUSHTON, H. L. ROEDIGER III, Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. Departments of Psychology (1975).American Psychologist, 33 (1978) 1064–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Social Science Citation Index, S.S.C.I. Copyright Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

  9. For example, E. GARFIELD, The 250 most-cited primary authors, 1961–1975. Part II. The correlation between citedness, Nobel prizes, and academy memberships.Current Contents, 9, No. 50, (1977), 5–15; E. GARFIELD, Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?Scientometrics, 1 (1979) 359–375.

    Google Scholar 

  10. K. D. ROOSE, C. J. ANDERSEN,op. cit., 2..

    Google Scholar 

  11. N. S. ENDLER, Research productivity and scholarly impact of Canadian Psychology Departments.Canadian Psyhological Review, 18 (1977) 152–168; N. S. ENDLER, J. P. RUSHTON, H. L. ROEDIGER III, op. cit. 7; Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. Departments of Psychology (1975).American Psychologist, 33 (1978) 1064–1082. J. P. RUSHTON, N. S. ENDLER, The scholarly impact and research productivity of Departments of Psychology in the United Kingdom,Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 30 (1977) 369–373.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Science Citation Index, op. cit., 6.S.C.I. Copyright Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

  13. Social Science Citation Index, op. cit, 8.S.S.C.I. Copyright Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

  14. Arts and Humanities Citation Index, A. & H.C.I. Copyright Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

  15. American Universities and Colleges, (11th edition), American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 1973.

  16. The World Almanac and Facts, 1978, Newspaper Enterprise Association, New York, 1977.

  17. The Commonwealth Universities Yearbook 1977–78, (54th edition), Association of Commonwealth Universities, London, 1977.

  18. The World of Learning 1977–78, (28th edition), Europa Publications, London, 1977.

  19. The Insider's Guide to the Colleges, 1978–79, Berkeley Publishing, New York, 1978.

  20. N. S. ENDLER, op. cit. 11; Research productivity and scholarly impact of Canadian Psychology Departments.Canadian Psyhological Review, 18 (1977) 152–168; N. S. ENDLER, J. P. RUSHTON, H. L. ROEDIGER, III, op. cit. 7; Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. Departments of Psychology (1975).American Psychologist, 33 (1978) 1064‐1082. J. P. RUSHTON, N. S. ENDLER, op. cit. 7. Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. Departments of Psychology (1975).American Psychologist, 33 (1978) 1064‐1082.

  21. K. D. ROOSE, C. J. ANDERSEN,op. cit. 2..

    Google Scholar 

  22. Graduate study in psychology, 1975–1976, American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., 1974.

  23. The Commonwealth Universities Yearbook, op. cit, 17. (54th edition), Association of Commonwealth Universities, London, 1977.

  24. F. NARIN, M. P. CARPENTER, National publication and citation comparisons,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (1975) 80–83.

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. P. RUSHTON, S. MELTZER, Research productivity, university revenue, and scholarly impact of 31 Canadian universities,Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 9 (1979) 74–81 J. P. RUSHTON, S. MELTZER, Evidence for the predictive utility of aggregated citations in Canadian psychology,Canadian Psychology, in press; J. P. RUSHTON, S. MELTZER, Research productivity, university revenue, and scholarly impact (citations) of 39 British universities (1977),Unpublished manuscript, The University of Western Ontario, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. R. COLE, S. COLE,Social Stratification in Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Some international comparative information using a quite different data source can be found in M. P. CARPENTER, F. NARIN, The subject composition of the world's scientific journals.Scientometrics, 2 (1980), 53–63; F. NARIN, M. P. CARPENTER, op. cit, 24. National publication and citation comparisons,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (1975) 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rushton, J.P., Meltzer, S. Research productivity, university revenue, and scholarly impact (citations) of 169 British, Canadian and United States universities (1977). Scientometrics 3, 275–303 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02021122

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02021122

Keywords