Printer Friendly

Relative influence of professional counseling journals.

In recent years, there has been a virtual explosion in the academic literature discussing methods for evaluating the relative quality of journals in various fields and supporting or opposing the use of specific measures, such as the journal impact factor (JIF) and various citation analyses. Several disciplines, professional organizations, and academic fields have struggled with techniques for ranking their professional journals (Sellers, Perry, Mathiesen, & Smith, 2004). Thus, journal ranking still remains controversial across disciplines (Togia & Tsigilis, 2006), across programs, and even within programs. Although the professional counseling literature has been largely silent on the issue, there have been anecdotal reports (e.g., Barrio Minton, Fernando, & Ray, 2008) that counselor educators are being called on to defend the quality and rigor of the journals in which they publish. Such a trend is consistent with reports from other fields that the "quality of the journals in which a researcher's work appears is a make or break factor when the merits for promotion and tenure are concerned" (Straub & Anderson, 2010, p. iii). Indeed, Togia and Tsigilis (2006) documented an increased role of publication metrics as indicators for assessing faculty in education, and O'Connor (2010) voiced concern regarding "the growing hegemony of publication outputs as a means to determine the scientific worth of an individual's, department's, or entire institution's true worth" as "surprising and alarming" (p. 141).

Understanding the significance of counseling journals and their relative influence on the dissemination of knowledge can be of value to counselor educators in a variety of ways: (a) as a contributory factor in personnel decisions involving faculty selection, compensation, promotion, and tenure (Sellers et al., 2004; Smaby & Crews, 1998); (b) as information for authors who must decide which journals are the best sources of informative, practical, and relevant literature and which are the best (most influential) channels for their research and practice results (Matocha & Hanks, 1993; Thompson, 1995); (c) as information for doctoral students and new entrants to the field who must gain insight into where the field has been and where it may be heading; (d) as information for individuals, departments, and libraries that must assign scarce resources to reading and/or subscribing to journals (Journal Citation Reports [JCR], 2008); and (e) as data for editors of journals to use in evaluating their own performance and the shape of their editorial agendas (McGowan, 1994; Thompson, 1995).

Two widely used and accepted methods to rank journals have been reputation or opinion surveys and citation scores (Sellers et al., 2004; Straub & Anderson, 2010). Within the reputation or opinion survey approach, researchers develop journal rankings by surveying a panel of experts in the field (e.g., faculty, department heads, deans, journal editors, and authors) about their perceptions of the quality of particular journals. Although there is an advantage in having the opinions of reputed professionals in the field, the primary limitation of this method is the issue of subjectivity. On the other hand, citation analyses measure a journal's visibility by noting the extent to which its articles are cited in other publications. A commonly used citation method in journal ranking is the JIF, which is calculated as the ratio of the number of citations of articles in a given journal to the number of articles in a set of journals over a specified time period (Lewis, 2008). This method is often used to evaluate a journal's significance compared with other publications listed by the Institute for Scientific Information (JCR, 2008).

Although the JIF is considered by some to be an objective method for evaluating journal quality, a number of scholars have identified pitfalls and cautions of using the JIF as a useful and credible measure of the quality and impact of journals (e.g., Johnstone, 2007; Straub & Anderson, 2010; Togia & Tsigilis, 2006). Of particular concern are the limited number of journals represented in the JCR (e.g., only 11% of peer-reviewed education journals are represented), the influence of extraneous factors (e.g., time to publication, type of discipline), and the degree to which JIFs are subject to manipulation (Togia & Tsigilis, 2006). Haslam and Laham (2010) found a quality--quantity trade-off in which quantity of publications by a faculty member, not quality, was associated with impact factor, a further affirmation that JIF is not a direct report of quality. Still others have reported that the JIF is being used for faculty evaluation in a way that was expressly eschewed by its developer (O'Connor, 2010; Togia & Tsigilis, 2006).

The counseling profession and its professional journals are not exempt from the potential pitfalls of embracing the JIF as a quality measure of its professional journals. Although Barrio Minton et al. (2008) found that counselor educators in programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs published more than 60% of their peer-reviewed articles in the 15 journals affiliated with the American Counseling Association (ACA) over a 10-year period, only five of these journals are indexed in JCR and only one journal (Journal of Counseling & Development [JCD]) emerged in the 10 most common publication venues reported by the authors. Although professional counseling journals may be central to the profession, the 2008 JIFs seem to suggest that even those five professional counseling journals indexed within the JCR have little to no impact (JCD = 0.61, Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development [JMCD] = 0.46, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development [MECD] = 0.69, Journal of Employment Counseling [JEC] = 0.59, and The Career Development Quarterly [CDQ] = 1.13). In 2008, JIFs ranged from 0.00 to 16.22 for all the journals at that time (JCR, 2008). Together, these data raise questions regarding the degree to which the JCR is representative of journal quality and influence for professional counseling journals that must maintain a strong practitioner focus while building an empirical literature base for the profession.

To date, there has been no bibliometric inquiry regarding the relative influence of different journals within professional counseling. Indeed, some individuals may be reluctant to explore citation trends within professional counseling journals out of fear that results of such studies may be used in ways that are harmful to smaller, practitioner-oriented journals or to the individuals who publish in them. At the same time, counselor educators may be required to provide evidence that their publications in critical professional counseling journals are indeed rigorous and meaningful to the field. In the absence of a published, data-driven resource to support their claims, these faculty members may be evaluated negatively within departments, colleges, and universities because they choose to publish in professional journals that have little or no "impact" as measured by the JCR. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to identify those journals most influential within the counseling profession and determine the flow of information among the professional counseling journals in which counselor educators publish most. Our research questions were as follows:

Research Question 1: Which professional counseling journals are cited most by authors in other study journals?

Research Question 2: Which professional counseling journals cite other counseling journals the most?

Research Question 3: What are the nature and strength of relationships among professional counseling journals?

* Method

Procedure

Because we were interested in understanding the flow of information among professional counseling journals, we examined all citations to peer-reviewed journals contained within articles published in the 15 journals published by ACA and its divisions over a 3-year period. Barrio Minton et al. (2008) also identified the International Journal of Play Therapy (IJPT) and the Journal of Individual Psychology (JIP) as two of the 10 most frequent publication venues for counselor educators over a 10-year period. Thus, we included IJPT and JIP in the study analysis. A complete listing of journals included in the study and their abbreviations may be found in Table 1. Because of the multiyear embargo applied by publishers on the release of many journals to full-text indexing services, we examined citations to peer-reviewed journals in articles published in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

The 17 study journals published 1,400 eligible articles (i.e., excluding editorial comments, advertisements, or meeting minutes) between 2004 and 2006. Citation data for the five journals (JCD, JMCD, MECD, JEC, and CDQ) indexed by the Social Science Citation Index were retrieved from JCR; we identified and computed data for the 12 journals not included in the JCR manually. Because JCR reports only journals that receive two or more citations by a journal in a given year, we counted a journal as being cited only if it was cited by a journal at least twice. Using this method, we retrieved a total of 19,496 citations from study-related journals.

To facilitate data analysis, we entered citation counts into a matrix in which cells denoted the number of times the journal in the row was cited by the journal in the column. Theoretically, the number of citations to journals should be proportionate to the number of articles published in a journal (Allen, 1995; Feeley, 2008), so we standardized the matrix by dividing the number of citations received by the number of articles published in a journal. For example, JCD received 1,152 citations from study journals and published 156 articles during the study period. Assuming that journals publish approximately the same number of articles over time, the standardized citation matrix indicates that each JCD article was cited an average of 7.38 (1,152/156) times by other journals in the study. Although self-citations often occur within specialties that generate their own literature, self-citations can inflate the apparent centrality of journals that cite themselves extensively. For this reason, we controlled for the effects of self-citation by setting the matrix diagonal to zero in the ensuing analyses (Allen, 1995; Feeley, 2008). Table I presents a summary of citations made and received by journals in this study, and Table 2 shows a matrix of citations to and from study journals.

Data Analysis: Social Network Analysis (SNA)

We used SNA, an "approach and set of techniques applied to the study of the relational aspects of networks" (Schultz-Jones, 2009, p. 595), to assess the flow of citations among professional counseling journals. Researchers use SNA to study a wide variety of networks, including citation networks and flow of information among and between journals and patents (Otte & Rousseau, 2002; Schultz-Jones, 2009; Vega-Rodondo, 2007). Specialized software provides visual representation of the structures of networks and allows researchers to assess the strength, direction, and closeness of relationships.

In the case of journal citation studies, the influence of individual journals can be measured by their centrality or how close these journals are to the center of the network of journals to which they belong. There are "six possible centrality measures (degree, betweenness, and closeness, in both the 'cited' and 'citing' dimensions)" (Leydesdorff, 2009, p. 1329). In-degree centrality measures citations to a journal by other journals in a network, and out-degree centrality measures citations by a journal to other journals in a network. Journals that have high in-degree centrality rank high from the standpoint of the extent to which they influence work published in other journals in the network. Journals that have high out-degree centrality rank high from the standpoint of the extent to which they draw on and help extend the influence of articles published in other journals in the same network.

Betweenness centrality is a measure of the degree to which a journal serves as a point of connection between journals in the study, thus facilitating flow of information within the network (Leydesdorff, 2009). Closeness centrality refers to the relative distance of one journal to all other journals in the network. Whereas degree centrality measures only take account of the direct ties of a journal to other journals by either citing or being cited by articles in those journals, closeness centrality also takes account of the number of indirect connections a journal has to other journals through one or more intermediate journals. Finally, graph analysis provides a visual representation of relationships among the journals (Leydesdorff, 2007).

We analyzed the citation network using UCINET VI (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) and NetDraw 2.089 (Borgatti, 2002) software. For the purposes of this study, we used in-degree centrality measures to assess the inflow of citations to study journals, out-degree centrality measures to assess the outflow of citations from study journals, and betweenness centrality measures to determine which counseling journals serve as key links within the field. In addition, we assessed for cliques or subgroups of three or more journals in the network that are fully interconnected to each other through citations.

* Results

Degree Centrality

As mentioned previously, in-degree centrality measures citations to a journal from other journals in a network, whereas out-degree centrality measures citations made by a journal to other journals in a network. Measures of degree centrality are reported in Table 3. In addition, in-degree centrality is visually depicted in Figure 1, wherein the size of nodes indicates the relative strength of centrality and the thickness of lines indicates the strength of specific connections between journals.

Among the study journals, JCD ranked first in out-degree centrality and in-degree centrality, indicating that JCD cites and is cited by study journals more often and more widely than are other journals in the network. Counselor Education and Supervision (CES) is ranked second in in-degree centrality and eighth in out-degree centrality, indicating that CES is cited more often and more widely by study journals than it cites other study journals. In contrast, Professional School Counseling (PSC) ranks eighth in in-degree centrality and second in out-degree centrality, indicating that PSC makes citations to other study journals much more often than it is cited by them.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In addition to centralization measures for individual journals, centralization measures for the entire network of journals express the degree of centralization in the network relative to a perfectly centralized network (configured as a star with a single journal in the center connected radially to other journals), where a single journal dominates in both in-degree and out-degree centrality. The overall in-degree centrality for the network of study journals is 33.67%, indicating a moderate amount of centralization of journals that are cited by other journals. The out-degree centrality of the network of counseling journals is 53.87%, indicating a higher degree of centralization of journals that cite other study journals. Taken together, these network centralization measures indicate a considerable degree of inequality across the counseling journals in their influence on the counseling literature.

Closeness Centrality

While degree centrality measures only take into account the direct ties of a journal to other journals by either citing or being cited by articles in those journals, closeness centrality is more general than degree centrality "because it takes the structural position of actors in the whole network into account. A high closeness for an actor means that he or she is related to all others through a small number of paths" (Otte & Rousseau, 2002, p. 447). In this case, a high out-degree closeness score indicates that a journal makes citations to a relatively high number of other journals directly or through a relatively small number of paths (e.g., if Journal A cites Journal B, and Journal B cites Journal C, the number of paths connecting Journal A to Journal C equals two). More than one half of study journals earned out-degree closeness centrality indicators of 80.00 or higher, indicating a very close network. JCD and MECD (first), CES and JMCD (second), and Counseling and Values (CVJ) and PSC (third) ranked highest in out-degree closeness.

A high in-degree closeness score indicates that a journal is cited directly or through a relatively small number of paths by a relatively large number of other journals in the study. Again, nearly one half of journals had in-degree closeness scores at or higher than 80.00, indicating a very close network. The Family Journal (first) and JCD, CVJ, and PSC (second) ranked highest in in-degree closeness.

Betweenness Centrality

As discussed previously, the betweenness measure "is based on the number of shortest paths passing through an actor.

Actors with a high betweenness play the role of connecting different groups, as 'middlemen'" (Otte & Rousseau, 2002, p. 447). As is reported in Table 3, CVJ (21.44), JCD (15.98), and PSC (12.19) have the highest betweenness centrality in the network, often facilitating knowledge flow between journals that would otherwise not have connections. The overall betweenness centrality of the network was only 6.76%; taken together with the measures of degree centrality, this indicates that journals are more likely to cite each other directly than to use a "middleman" to make connections.

Cliques

A clique is a "sub-set of actors in a network, who are more closely tied to each other than to other actors who are not part of the sub-set" (Rajasekaran & Zaphiris, 2003, p. 220). Cliques focus on tightly connected groups, in this case, journals closely tied to each other through flow of information (citations). UCINET also allows for assessment of cliques or subgroups consisting of three or more journals. In this case, UCINET detected a total of 14 cliques, with JCD being involved in the most number of cliques, therefore ranking first. Following closely behind are JMCD and MECD ranking second and third, respectively (see Table 3). On the other hand, highly specialized journals such as Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling (JAOC), IJPT, and J/P were involved with the fewest number of cliques.

* Discussion

This study examined the citation patterns among professional counseling journals to establish their relative influence in the counseling profession. Although some journals (JCD, JMCD, MECD, JEC, and CDQ) are already included in JCR, this study demonstrates that a number of other journals are also key players in the flow of information within the profession. As is illustrated in the following paragraphs, sole reliance on the JCR as a means of identifying the most influential journals in the counseling profession is misleading and may lead to significant omissions and distortions.

Study results clearly identify JCD as the most central journal in the counseling profession. Although its JIF indicates that JCD is only half as influential as CDQ, JCD ranks high in every measure, indicating that it serves as a central point of connection between the other journals in the study, successfully facilitating a flow of information within the counseling network. Additionally, JCD is closest to all other journals in the network (closeness centrality), has the most number of ties to other journals (degree centrality) by either citing or being cited by articles in those journals, and has the highest number of indirect connections to other journals through one or more intermediate journals.

Other journals included in the JCR also emerged as key players within the profession. Although JMCD has the lowest impact factor of the indexed counseling journals, it was cited often and widely by other study journals as evidenced by the third highest in-degree centrality metric, high closeness scores, and participation in the second largest number of cliques. Similarly, MECD was fourth in in-degree centrality but low in out-degree centrality, indicating that it is more likely to make citations to journals outside the profession. Given that MECD had high closeness scores and participated in many cliques, it appears that MECD plays an important role in bringing outside information into the profession. On the other hand, JEC, which has a similar impact factor to that of JCD, was seventh in in-degree centrality, and quite low in out-degree centrality, closeness, and betweenness. Examination of the network indicates that most citations to JEC come from CDQ, thus indicating a different type of role in the network. In this case, JEC is positioned to use the network to seek and exchange information directly from CDQ, thus having a strong relationship with CDQ but playing a role of isolation within the profession by having few ties to other journals in the network. Finally, CDQ, which has an impact factor of about double that of JCD, was ninth in in-degree centrality, but ranked quite high in out-degree centrality. Thus, it appears that CDQ cites other counseling journals often and, given the higher impact factor, is cited most by interdisciplinary journals, thus facilitating flow of information outside the profession.

Examination of centrality measures for journals included in JCR both supports their inclusion in JCR and illustrates the complexity and uniqueness of their contribution to the counseling profession and beyond. However, a number of journals not included in the JCR emerged in the study as key to the profession. For example, CES is not included in JCR and yet was a close second to JCD in the number of times it was cited by other journals in the study. Its high closeness scores and placement within the professional counseling network illustrate its central role in the profession. Similarly, CVJ was consistently high across measures and had the highest betweenness measure, indicating that it played an important role in connecting journals that might not otherwise have connections. Finally, the Journal of Mental Health Counseling (JMHC) and PSC were similar in the degree to which they were cited by other journals in the study; however, JMHC was eighth in clique participation, whereas PSC was second in citation to other journals within the profession. Given that these journals are geared toward professionals in particular settings, these metrics indicate that they play an important role in dissemination of information and connection.

Although it might be tempting for some to relegate journals not mentioned previously to lower tiers or status within the profession, we strongly caution against doing so. As illustrated earlier, citation networks are complex and numbers may have a variety of meanings. Journals not cited as often by study journals included the Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development (now Journal of Humanistic Counseling); Journal for Specialists in Group Work; JIP; IJPT; The Family Journal; Adultspan; Journal of College Counseling; and JAOC. In all cases, these journals reflect a clearly identified specialty or subspecialty within the profession, and we believe that their placement in the network denotes them as important sources of information for practitioners and researchers who compose the heart of the counseling profession. Indeed, approximately half of the peer-reviewed articles written by counselor educators are practice-based (Barrio Minton et al., 2008). Although this does not diminish their value to practitioners, we suspect that these articles are less likely to be cited than are research-oriented articles, a suspicion supported by the finding that only two of the 10 JCD articles (2001-2010) most frequently cited within the Institute for Scientific Information's Web of Science are practice-based. This finding should be of interest and provide encouragement to faculty who publish research and practice pieces in specialized areas (e.g., school counseling, college counseling, group counseling, and play therapy). These journals provide a valuable service to readers and serve as important publication venues for individuals who work in specialized areas.

Limitations

This study includes publications between 2004 and 2006, thereby presenting only a snapshot of how these journals influence the network. Because of lag times in publication indexing queues, sometimes exceeding 2 years, it was not feasible to include more current articles. It is possible that relationships and influences among professional counseling journals have changed in the last 3 years, especially with the development of new journals (e.g., Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation). This study does not necessarily provide a direct measure of quality or value of journals, articles, authors, or studies. Rather, it provides measures of journal influence solely within the counseling profession and is intended to be used as a holistic device to evaluate the complex relationships and connections within the profession. Finally, although publications in journals from disciplines such as psychology, human development, and cultural studies may influence counseling research, these journals were not included in the study. Whereas those outside journals are cited frequently by some counseling journals (e.g., JCD, JMCD, MECD, and CES), assessment of the centrality of those journals or the cliques to which they belong is beyond the scope of this study.

Implications

The results of this study may be useful to counseling practitioners who may be interested to know which journals are most closely connected to their specialty areas of interest and practice. We advocate for broader participation in ACA and its divisions, and in this context, understanding connections among different areas may help facilitate some bonds. We realize that the risk of publishing bibliometric information, although intended to be holistic in nature and serve as a resource from which faculty may draw in supporting and advocating the legitimacy of their publications in the current climate, may develop a life of its own. We hope that the results of this study are useful to counselor educators and administrators who need a resource beyond the JCR for justifying selection of publication venues within the profession. As discussed previously, the sole reliance on citations as a measure to calculate impact factor, limited inclusion of professional counseling journals in the JCR, and low impact factor of included journals does little to help with promotion, tenure, or merit considerations for many counseling faculty members. As discussed previously, we found that the 12 journals not indexed in JCR are also relevant (in some cases and for some attributes, even more so than some indexed journals from the standpoint of the counseling profession) and hold important places in terms of centrality and flow of information in the counseling journal network. We hope that these findings will encourage administrators and counselor educators to consider promotion and tenure decisions in a new light and without placing a heavy reliance on the JCR and JIFs. We also hope that those outside of counseling will find different approaches to evaluate journal quality to avoid unwarranted emphasis being given to journals' impact factors.

Counseling faculty members may feel pressure to publish in "top tier" journals in their area of study, and there is a risk that the results of this study may be used to perpetuate systems of valuing that are not helpful to the development of scholars and the profession as a whole. Our results indicate that although some journals ranked higher than others did in relative influence, all 17 journals--including the specialty area journals--are connected and have their own niche in the flow of information within the counseling profession (see Figure 1). It is important that faculty are encouraged and supported to expand research in their specialty areas, even if the publication venues for their research tend to have low impact factors or the specific journal is placed on the outer fringe of the diagram in terms of centrality.

Recommendations for Future Research

As multiculturalism and social justice issues call for more attention, the counseling profession and counseling research are also changing, with more research being conducted in these emerging areas. Similarly, demands for outcome research to inform evidence-based practice, emerging specialty areas, and issues related to a unified professional identity have the potential to facilitate significant changes within the counseling profession. In turn, researchers may wish to observe changes in flow of information and journal influence across time. Finally, as newer journals are introduced into the profession and new editors influence the direction of journals, the dynamics of information flow and connection will change, thereby offering opportunities to revisit results via the future replication of this study.

Received 07/27/10

Revised 10/12/10

Accepted 11/19/10

* References

Allen, F. L. (1995). The relative influence on social work journals: Impact factors vs. core influence. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 38-45.

Barrio Minton, C. A., Fernando, D. M., & Ray, D. C. (2008). Ten years of peer-reviewed articles in counselor education: Where, what, who? Counselor Education and Supervision, 48, 133-143.

Borgatti, S. P. (2002). NetDraw: Graph visualization software. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Feeley, T. H. (2008). A bibliometric analysis of communication journals from 2002 to 2005. Human Communication Research, 34, 505-520.

Haslam, N., & Laham, S. M. (2010). Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 216-220.

Johnstone, M. (2007). Journal impact factors: Implications for the nursing profession. International Nursing Review, 54, 35-40.

Journal Citation Reports. (2008). Institute of Scientific Information. Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/

Lewis, B. (2008, November/December). Judging the journals. Biz/Ed Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, 42-45.

Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/Archives/ novdec08/42-45%20Judging%20Journals.pdf

Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1303-1319. doi: 10.1002/asi.20614

Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are the new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1327-1336. doi: 10.1002/asi.21024

Matocha, L., & Hanks, R. S. (1993). Authors' perspectives on publishing family theory and research. In R. S. Hanks, L. Matocha, & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Publishing in journals on the family: Essays on publishing (pp. 5-12). New York, NY: Haworth.

McGowan, A. S. (1994). American Counseling Association branch journals: Viable, scholarly means for publishing. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 32, 146-148.

O'Connor, S. J. (2010). Citations, impact factors and shady publication practices: How should the lasting clinical and social value of research really be measured? European Journal of Cancer Care, 19, 141-143. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01178.x

Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28, 441-453. doi:0.1177/016555150202800601

Rajasekaran, M. S., & Zaphiris, P. (2003). Social network analysis of a participatory designed online foreign language course. In J. Jacko & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Human-computer interaction, theory and practice (Part 1) (Vol. 1, pp. 218-222). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schultz-Jones, B. (2009). Examining information behavior through social networks: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Documentation, 65, 592-631. doi: 10.1108/00220410910970276

Sellers, S., Perry, R., Mathiesen, S., & Smith, T. (2004). Evaluation of social work journal quality: Citation versus reputation approaches. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 143-160.

Smaby, M., & Crews, J. (1998). Publishing in scholarly journals: Part 1--Is it an attitude or technique? It's an attitude. Counselor Education and Supervision, 37, 218-223.

Straub, D., & Anderson, C. (2010). Journal quality and citations: Common metrics and considerations about their use. MIS Quarterly, 34, iii-xii.

Thompson, B. (1995). Publishing your research results: Some suggestions and counsel. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 342-345.

Togia, A., & Tsigilis, N. (2006). Impact factor and education journals: A critical examination and analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 362-379. doi: 10.1016/j. ijer.2007.02.001

Vega-Rodondo, F. (2007). Complex social networks. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Delini M. Fernando and Casey A. Barrio Minton, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, University of North Texas. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Delini M. Fernando, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle, No. 310829, Denton, TX 76203 (e- mail: delini.fernando@unt.edu).
TABLE 1
Names, Abbreviations, Articles, and Citations Made and Received by
Study Journals From 2004 to 2006

                                                  Citations Made

                                   No. of                Self-Cite
Journal and Abbreviation          Articles      N        n        %

Journal of Counseling &             156       3,259     361     11.08
Development (JCD)

Journal of Multicultural             53         916      90      9.83
Counseling and Development
(JMCD)

Measurement and Evaluation in        53       1,024      72      7.03
Counseling and Development
(MECD)

Journal of Employment                50         605      60      9.92
Counseling (JEC)

The Career Development               78       1,604     282     17.58
Quarterly (CDQ)

Counselor Education and              68        1049     253     24.12
Supervision (CES)

Professional School Counseling      194       2,459     796     32.37
(PSC)

Journal of Mental Health             81       1,216     133     10.94
Counseling (JMHC)

Counseling and Values (CVJ)          64         986     149     15.11

Adultspan (ASPAN)                    24         212       6      2.83

The Family Journal (Fam)            191       2,120     160      7.55

Journal of College Counseling        61         821      51      6.21
(JCC)

Journal of Humanistic
Counseling, Education and            66         679      36      5.30
Development (HEJ)

Journal for Specialists in           85         790     295     37.34
Group Work (JSGW)

Journal of Addictions &
Offender Counseling (JAOC)           31         363      20      5.51

International Journal of Play        35         441     250     56.69
Therapy (IJPT)

Journal of Individual               110         952     269     28.26
Psychology (JIP)

                                          Citations Made

                                  Study Journal    Outside Journal
Journal and Abbreviation           n        %        n        %

Journal of Counseling &           396     12.15    2,502    76.77
Development (JCD)

Journal of Multicultural          222     24.24      604    65.94
Counseling and Development
(JMCD)

Measurement and Evaluation in      85      8.30      867    84.67
Counseling and Development
(MECD)

Journal of Employment              72     11.90      473    78.18
Counseling (JEC)

The Career Development            220     13.72    1,102     68.7
Quarterly (CDQ)

Counselor Education and           253     24.12      543    51.76
Supervision (CES)

Professional School Counseling    430     17.49    1,233    50.14
(PSC)

Journal of Mental Health          134     11.02      949    78.04
Counseling (JMHC)

Counseling and Values (CVJ)       260     26.37      577    58.52

Adultspan (ASPAN)                  30     14.15      176    83.02

The Family Journal (Fam)          216     10.19    1,744    82.26

Journal of College Counseling     118     14.37      652    79.42
(JCC)

Journal of Humanistic
Counseling, Education and         250     36.82      393    57.88
Development (HEJ)

Journal for Specialists in        143      18.1      352    44.56
Group Work (JSGW)

Journal of Addictions &
Offender Counseling (JAOC)         49      13.5      294    80.99

International Journal of Play      51     11.56      140    31.75
Therapy (IJPT)

Journal of Individual              85      8.93      598    62.82
Psychology (JIP)

                                 Citations
Journal and Abbreviation          Received

Journal of Counseling &            1,152
Development (JCD)

Journal of Multicultural             205
Counseling and Development
(JMCD)

Measurement and Evaluation in        108
Counseling and Development
(MECD)

Journal of Employment                 81
Counseling (JEC)

The Career Development               118
Quarterly (CDQ)

Counselor Education and              441
Supervision (CES)

Professional School Counseling       300
(PSC)

Journal of Mental Health             134
Counseling (JMHC)

Counseling and Values (CVJ)          114

Adultspan (ASPAN)                      6

The Family Journal (Fam)              71

Journal of College Counseling          4
(JCC)

Journal of Humanistic
Counseling, Education and             78
Development (HEJ)

Journal for Specialists in            83
Group Work (JSGW)

Journal of Addictions &
Offender Counseling (JAOC)             4

International Journal of Play         18
Therapy (IJPT)

Journal of Individual                 87
Psychology (JIP)

TABLE 2
Standardized Matrix of Citations to Journals (In-Degree) in Row From
Journal in Column (Out-Degree)

Journal         1        2        3        4        5        6

1.    JCD     2.3l#    0.88     0.26     0.l6     0.52     0.67
2.    JMCD    0.79     1.70#    0.34              0.26     0.32
3.    MECD    0.38     0.l1     1.36#    0.08     0.42     0.06
4.    JEC     0.06              0.06     1.20#    1.32     0.06
5.    CDQ     0.l4     0.l3     0.04     0.49     3.62#    0.03
6.    CES     0.74     0.65     0.09     0.04     0.47     3.72#
7.    PSC     0.57     0.06     0.04     0.01     0.01     0.52
8.    JMHC    0.58     0.05     0.04                       0.05
9.    CVJ     0.55     0.06                                0.02
10.   ASPAN
11.   Fam     0.03              0.01
12.   JCC                                         0.05
13.   HEJ     0.35     0.06                                0.05
14.   JSGW    0.l3                                         0.18
15.   JAOC
16.   IJPT    0.26
17.   JIP     0.25              0.03

Journal         7        8        9        10       11       12

1.    JCD     1.46     0.30     0.72     0.08     0.5l     0.40
2.    JMCD    0.34     0.08     0.49     0.06     0.21     0.34
3.    MECD    0.34     0.06     0.04     0.06     0.04     0.09
4.    JEC     0.06                                0.04
5.    CDQ     0.41     0.03     0.06     0.03     0.03     0.04
6.    CES     0.79     0.06     0.97              0.71     0.l8
7.    PSC     4.10#    0.03     0.02              0.03
8.    JMHC    0.06     1.64#    0.23              0.25     0.04
9.    CVJ     0.33     0.30     2.33#    0.05     0.16     0.03
10.   ASPAN                     0.13     0.25#    0.04
11.   Fam     0.03     0.10     0.06     0.01     0.84#    0.02
12.   JCC              0.05                       0.07     0.84#
13.   HEJ     0.l5     0.32                       0.09     0.05
14.   JSGW    0.28     0.05     0.05              0.08     0.01
15.   JAOC                      0.03
16.   IJPT    0.20              0.06
17.   JIP     0.05     0.02     0.05     0.04     0.l6     0.04

Journal         13       14       15       16       17

1.    JCD     0.67     0.27     0.15     0.14     0.19
2.    JMCD    0.28     0.13     0.l5              0.08
3.    MECD    0.15     0.09     0.04     0.04     0.06
4.    JEC                                         0.02
5.    CDQ     0.10
6.    CES     0.76     0.76     0.03              0.24
7.    PSC     0.05     0.10              0.11     0.01
8.    JMHC    0.26     0.05     0.02              0.02
9.    CVJ     0.19     0.02     0.02     0.03     0.05
10.   ASPAN                                       0.08
11.   Fam     0.03     0.01                       0.07
12.   JCC     0.05     0.02
13.   HEJ     0.55#    0.03              0.03     0.06
14.   JSGW    0.11     3.47#    0.04              0.06
15.   JAOC             0.10     0.65#
16.   IJPT                               4.71#
17.   JIP     0.04     0.04     0.06     0.02     2.45

Note. Citations to journal standardized by dividing the number of
citations by number of articles published by journal receiving the
citation. Values < .01 are suppressed. Boldface values indicate self-
citations. JCD = Journal of Counseling & Development; JMCD = Journal
of Multicultural Counseling and Development; MECD = Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development; JEC = Journal of Employment
Counseling; CDQ = The Career Development Quarterly; CES = Counselor
Education and Supervision; PSC = Professional School Counseling; JMHC
= Journal of Mental Health Counseling; CVJ = Counseling and Values;
ASPAN = Adultspan; Fam = The Family Journal; JCC Journal of College
Counseling; HEJ= Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and
Development; JSG W = Journal for Specialists in Group Work, JAOC =
Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling; IJPT = International
Journal of Play Therapy, JIP = Journal of Individual Psychology.

Note: Boldface values indicate self-citations is indicated with #.

TABLE 3
Centrality Measures and Ranks

                           In-Degree

Journal      JIF    Centrality    Rank    Closeness

JCD         0.61       7.38         1       84.21
CES                    6.49         2       72.73
JMCD        0.46       3.87         3       66.67
MECD        0.69       2.06         4       66.67
CVJ                    1.81         5       84.21
JMHC                   1.65         6       80.00
JEG (a)     0.59       1.62         7       55.17
PSC                    1.56         8       84.21
CDQ         1.13       1.53         9       59.26
HEJ                    1.19        10       80.00
JSGW                   0.99        11       80.00
JIP                    0.80        12       80.00
IJPT                   0.52        13       61.54
Fam                    0.37        14       88.89
ASPAN (a)              0.25        15       64.00
JCC                    0.24        16       76.19
JAOC                   0.13        17       66.67

                      Out-Degree

Journal     Centrality    Rank    Closeness

JCD            4.83         1       100.00
CES            1.96         8        88.89
JMCD           2.00         7        88.89
MECD           0.91        13       100.00
CVJ            2.91         4        84.21
JMHC           1.40        10        80.00
JEG (a)        0.78        14        64.00
PSC            4.50         2        84.21
CDQ            3.05         3        80.00
HEJ            2.69         5        72.73
JSGW           1.62         9        72.73
JIP            0.94        12        80.00
IJPT           0.37        16        55.17
Fam            2.42         6        72.73
ASPAN (a)      0.33        17        51.62
JCC            1.24        11        59.26
JAOC           0.51        15        48.49

                 Betweenness
                                  Clique
Journal     Centrality    Rank     Rank

JCD            15.98        2       1
CES             5.85        8       6
JMCD            2.67       12       2
MECD            6.50        7       3
CVJ            21.44        1       9
JMHC            4.73        9       8
JEG (a)         0.09       15       4
PSC            12.19        3       7
CDQ             4.64       10       5
HEJ             4.37       11       13
JSGW            8.00        5       14
JIP             8.69        4       17
IJPT            0.11       14       16
Fam             7.79        6       11
ASPAN (a)       0.09       15       10
JCC             1.87       13       12
JAOC            0.00       16       15

Note. Out-degree network centralization = 53.87%; in-degree network
centralization = 33.67%; betweenness centralization index = 6.76%.
JIF = 2008 journal impact factor; JCD = Journal of Counseling &
Development, CES = Counselor Education and Supervision; JMCD = Journal
of Multicultural Counseling and Development MECD = Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development CVJ = Counseling and Values,
JMHC = Journal of Mental Health Counseling; JEC = Journal of
Employment Counseling; PSC = Professional School Counseling, CDQ  =
The Career Development Quarterly; HEJ = Journal of Humanistic
Counseling, Education and Development; JSGW = Journal for Specialists
in  Group Work, JIP= Journal of Individual Psychology; IJPT =
International Journal of Play Therapy, Fam = The Family Journal, ASPAN
= Adultspan; JCC = Journal of College Counseling; JAOC = Journal of
Addictions & Offender Counseling.

(a) JEC and ASPAN measures were the same for betweeness centrality and
therefore share the same ranking.
COPYRIGHT 2011 American Counseling Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Fernando, Delini M.; Minton, Casey A. Barrio
Publication:Journal of Counseling and Development
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Sep 22, 2011
Words:6814
Previous Article:Facilitating trainees' multicultural development and social justice advocacy through a refugee/immigrant mental health program.
Next Article:Self-efficacy, self-rated abilities, adjustment, and academic performance.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters