Productivity in educational psychology journals from 2003 to 2008

Productivity of individuals and institutions in educational psychology journals has been previously examined in three separate studies (Hsieh et al. [Hsieh, P., Acee, T., Chung, W., Hsieh, Y., Kim, H., Thomas, G. D., et al. (2004). An alternate look at educational psychologist’s productivity from 1991 to 2002. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 333–343]; Smith et al. [Smith, M. C., Locke, S. G., Boisse, S. J., Gallagher, P. A., Krengel, L. E., & Kuczek, J. E., et al. (1998). Productivity of educational psychologists in educational psychology journals, 1991–1996. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 173–181]; [Smith, M. C., Plant, M., Carney, R. N., Arnold, C. S., Jackson, A., Johnson, L. S., et al. (2003). Further productivity of educational psychologists in educational psychology journals, 1997–2001. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 422–430.]) spanning the years 1991–2002. The present study updates this literature by examining the same five journals: Cognition and Instruction, Contemporary Educational Psychology, the Educational Psychologist, Educational Psychology Review, and the Journal of Educational Psychology from 2003 to 2008. Individual productivity was calculated by the number of (a) articles published and (b) points based on a formula that considers author position in relation to the number of authors. The University of Maryland and Richard E. Mayer maintained their positions as the top research institution and author, respectively. There was also growth in collaboration as well as international involvement as measured by number of authors.