Editorial: Measuring the Impact of the Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

How do we know if our efforts are having an impact? How can we measure this, and how do we know if things are improving or getting worse? Many social workers in direct practice naturally ask themselves these questions. As academics, authors, and yes, journal editors, we often ask ourselves similar questions. Do the articles we publish have impact? Is Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal (CASWJ) a ‘‘good’’ journal? These questions are probably most frequently asked by tenure-earning junior professors—publishing in quality publication outlets is famously an important part of the tenure process (i.e., Seipel, 2003). However, beyond tenure concerns, the assessment of scientific publications in social work is an important topic that social work academics have put substantial energy into over the years (e.g., Holden, Rosenberg, & Barker, 2005). In this way, social work probably differs little from other fields in the academy, where bibliometric research is increasingly common. The Impact Factor (IF) is the classic indicator of journal impact. Impact factor is the ‘‘average number of citations to published papers in the 2 years post-publication, by other subsequent papers in indexed journals’’ (Blyth et al., 2010, p. 122). In social science, the Thomson Reuters (previously ISI) database is standard. Articles that are cited in non-indexed journals do not count towards the impact factor of a journal. Due to the fact that many social work journals are not indexed in this database (including CASWJ), relying solely on IF as a measure of journal impact is problematic, as it can lead to an underestimation of journal impact. There are other problems with IF (well described in Blyth et al., 2010; see also PLoS Medicine Editors, 2006). So while IF is a well-established and useful metric, alternative measurement methods are clearly called for. The h-index (Hirsch, 2005), developed by physicist Jorge Hirsch to measure research impact, is a desirable alternative. H-index represents the number of citations and quantity of publications in one number; a researcher or journal with an h-index of 15 has 15 publications that have been cited at least 15 times apiece (see Lacasse, Hodge, & Bean, 2011). The use of the Google Scholar database to calculate journal h-index leads to a more inclusive method of measurement, as it captures journal citations in peerreviewed journals not indexed by Thomson Reuters. Through data analysis, Hodge and Lacasse (2011a) argue that the h-index may be a more empirically valid and appropriate manner of measuring journal impact in the field of social work than IFs. In a separate publication (Hodge & Lacasse, 2011b), they ranked the top-80 disciplinary social work journals by 10-year h-index value. In 2011, CASWJ, although unranked by IF, was the 11th most highly ranked journal out of 80 by h-index score. Since then, Google Scholar has integrated a journal metrics function which offers 5-year h-index values for scientific journals. Unfortunately, the Google Scholar ‘‘Social Work’’ category includes a familiar problem (Thyer, 2012), as many of the listed journals are (at least arguably) not actually disciplinary social work journals. However, by simply entering ‘‘social work’’ into Scholar Metrics, the impact of CASWJ relative to other journals can be assessed. On this list, CASWJ currently ranks #18 out of the Top-20 journals displayed (http://tinyurl.com/CASWJh-index). The five-year h-index of CASWJ is 14, while Social Work Research is just ahead at 15 and Social Service & Lisa Schelbe lschelbe@fsu.edu