The declining scientific impact of theses: Implications for electronic thesis and dissertation repositories and graduate studies

Abstract

Although the writing of a thesis is a very important step for scientists undertaking a career in research, little information exists on the impact of theses as a source of scientific information. Knowing the impact of theses is relevant not only for students undertaking graduate studies, but also for the building of repositories of electronic theses and dissertations (ETD) and the substantial investment this involves. This paper shows that the impact of theses as information sources has been generally declining over the last century, apart from during the period of the ‘golden years’ of research, 1945 to 1975. There is no evidence of ETDs having a positive impact; on the contrary, since their introduction the impact of theses has actually declined more rapidly. This raises questions about the justification for ETDs and the appropriateness of writing monograph style theses as opposed to publication of a series of peer-reviewed papers as the requirement for fulfilment of graduate studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Anwar, M. A. (2004). From doctoral dissertation to publication. A study of 1995 American graduates in Library and Information Science. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 36: 151–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ash, J. (1969). The exchange of academic dissertations. College and Research Libraries, 30(3): 237–241.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barry, C. A. (1997). Information skills for an electronic world: training doctoral research students. Journal of Information Science, 23(3): 225–238.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Beile, P. M., Boote, D. N., Killingsworth, E. K. (2004). A microscope or a mirror? A question of study validity regarding the use of dissertation citation analysis for evaluating research collections. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(5): 347–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bourdieu, P. (1975). La spécificité du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrès de la raison. Sociologie et sociétés, 7(1): 91–118.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bowen, W. G., Lord, G., Sosa, J. A. (1991). Measuring time to the doctorate: Reinterpretation of the evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 88(3): 713–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boyer, C. (1973). The Doctoral Dissertation as an Information Source: A Study of Scientific Information Flow. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Buttlar, L. (1999). Information sources in library and information science doctoral research. Library & Information Science Research, 21(2): 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Council of Graduate Schools (1997). The role and nature of the doctoral dissertation: a policy statement. Retrieved September 20th, 2005 from: http://www.cgsnet.org/PublicationsPolicyRes/role.htm.

  10. Davinson, D. E. (1977). Theses and dissertations as information sources. Linnet Books, Hamdon, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Edwards, S. (1999). Citation analysis as a collection development tool: a bibliometric study of polymer science theses and dissertations. Serials Review, 25(1): 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gingras, Y. (2003). Idées d’universités: enseignement, recherche et innovation. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 148: 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gonzalez, A. (1996). Graduation rates and times to completion for doctoral programs in Canada. Education Quarterly Review, 3(2): 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gooden, A. M. (2001). Citation analysis of chemistry doctoral dissertations: An Ohio State University case study. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Available at: http://www.istl.org/01-fall/refereed.html

  15. Isaac, P. D., Quinlan, S. V., Walker, M. M. (1992). Faculty perceptions of the doctoral dissertation. Journal of Higher Education, 63(3): 241–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Katz, E. L. (1997). Key players in the dissertation process. New Directions for Higher Education, 99: 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kushkowski, J. D. (2005). Web citation by graduate students: A comparison of print and electronic theses. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(2): 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kushkowski, J. D., Parsons, K. A., Wiese, W. H. (2003). Master’s and doctoral thesis citations: Analysis and trends of a longitudinal study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(3): 459–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Larivière, V., Archambault, E., Gingras, Y., Vignola-Gagné, E. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8): 997–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee, W. M. (2000). Publication trends of doctoral students in three fields from 1965–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2): 139–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2004). Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2003, NSF 05-300. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05300/pdfstart.htm

  23. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2006). U.S. Doctorates in the 20th Century. NSF 06-319. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/start.cfm

  24. Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) (2005). Retrieved August 22, 2005 from http://www.ndltd.org/about.en.html.

  25. Repp, M. J., Glaviano, C. (1987). Dissertations: A Study of the Scholar’s Approach. College & Research Libraries, 48(2): 148–159.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tinkler, P., Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the doctorate: Institutional policy and the Ph.D. examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2): 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Walcott, R. (1991). Characteristics of citations in geoscience doctoral dissertations accepted at United States academic institutions 1981–1985. Science & Technology Libraries, 12(2): 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weisser, C. R., Walker, J. R. (1997). Electronic theses and dissertations: digitizing scholarship for its own sake. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 3(2). Retrieved October 14, 2005 from http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-02/etd.html.

  29. Winter, R., Griffiths, M., Green, K. (2000). The “academic qualities” of practice: What are the criteria for a practised-based Ph.D.? Studies in Higher Education, 25(2): 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ziolkowski, T. (1990). The Ph.D. Squid. The American Scholar, 59(2): 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zipp, L. S. (1996). Thesis and dissertation citations as indicators of faculty research use of university library journal collections. Library Resources and Technical Services, 40(4): 335–342.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Larivière.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Larivière, V., Zuccala, A. & Archambault, É. The declining scientific impact of theses: Implications for electronic thesis and dissertation repositories and graduate studies. Scientometrics 74, 109–121 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0106-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Citation Analysis
  • Social Science Citation Index
  • Scientific Impact
  • Thomson Scientific
  • Open Access Initiative