The purpose of this study was to test Lotka’s law of scientific publication productivity using the methodology outlined by Pao (1985), in the field of Library and Information Studies (LIS). Lotka’s law has been sporadically tested in the field over the past 30+ years, but the results of these studies are inconclusive due to the varying methods employed by the researchers. A data set of 1,856 citations that were found using the ISI Web of Knowledge databases were studied. The values of n and c were calculated to be 2.1 and 0.6418 (64.18%) respectively. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) one sample goodness-of-fit test was conducted at the 0.10 level of significance. The Dmax value is 0.022758 and the calculated critical value is 0.026562. It was determined that the null hypothesis stating that there is no difference in the observed distribution of publications and the distribution obtained using Lotka’s and Pao’s procedure could not be rejected. This study finds that literature in the field of library and Information Studies does conform to Lotka’s law with reliable results. As result, Lotka’s law can be used in LIS as a standardized means of measuring author publication productivity which will lead to findings that are comparable on many levels (e.g., department, institution, national). Lotka’s law can be employed as an empirically proven analytical tool to establish publication productivity benchmarks for faculty and faculty librarians. Recommendations for further study include (a) exploring the characteristics of the high and low producers; (b) finding a way to successfully account for collaborative contributions in the formula; and, (c) a detailed study of institutional policies concerning publication productivity and its impact on the appointment, tenure and promotion process of academic librarians.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2018-04-24T12:27:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Ismael Rocha Júnior.pdf: 1973810 bytes, checksum: 7f500fa8e2b27a970c86290a5574ef1e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-24T12:27:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ismael Rocha Júnior.pdf: 1973810 bytes, checksum: 7f500fa8e2b27a970c86290a5574ef1e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-13 / This Thesis approaches the Academic Productivism considering teachers enrolled in the Education Graduate Programs. To portray and understand the dynamics in which they are involved from the existing dichotomy caused by the pressure to produce and vocation to teach, the challenge of questioning and producing on the theme and surviving in a contemporary society in the second decade of the 21st Century is the context where this thesis was built. Quantitative and qualitative approaches compose its methodological path. Starting from an extensive survey, considering dissertations and theses produced between 2006 and 2015 in all the Brazilian Post-Graduate Programs in Education, and in the articles published in the Portal Educ @, it was possible to identify how many and which approaches were made on the theme. This census on the academic universe of Education showed that Academic Productivism, quantitatively, is not relevant when compared to other topics most frequently addressed. For the quantitative survey, statistical tools were used, among them Lotka's Law, still little present in the Brazilian academic works. However, considering this approach, it was necessary to qualitatively analyze all collected material, revealing consistent and useful productions that leads to a better understanding of the Academic Productivism. The inconsistency between the two approaches rises the Conclusion that they are complementary rather than incoherent. And again this path points to the teacher, present and represented in the quantitative and qualitative approaches, showing another nefarious side of Academic Productivism: the researcher teacher as victim and agent in this scene. On him lies all pressures, demands, challenges and the need for survival. These two sides will point to the complementarity of the two approaches of this Thesis, a contribution to the study of the theme to understand another face of the Academic Productivism in Brazil / Esta Tese aborda o Produtivismo Acadêmico a partir do docente dos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Educação. Retratar e entender a dinâmica na qual estão envolvidos a partir da dicotomia existente pela pressão por produzir e vocação por ensinar, pelo desafio de questionar e produzir sobre o tema e sobreviver na sociedade contemporânea na segunda década do Século XXI é o contexto onde esta Tese foi construída. A abordagem mista, quantitativa e qualitativa, compõe o caminho metodológico utilizado. Partindo de um extenso levantamento das dissertações e teses produzidas entre os anos de 2006 e 2015 em todos os Programas de Pós-graduação em Educação no Brasil e, nos artigos publicados no Portal Educ@, foi possível identificar quantos e quais as abordagens que fizeram sobre o tema. Este censo sobre o universo acadêmico da área de Educação revelou que o Produtivismo Acadêmico, quantitativamente, não se apresenta relevante quando comparado a outros temas abordados com maior frequência. Para o levantamento quantitativo foram utilizadas ferramentas estatísticas, entre elas a Lei de Lotka, ainda pouco presente nos trabalhos acadêmicos brasileiros. No entanto, frente a abordagem mista, foi necessário a abordagem qualitativa de todo o material coletado, descortinando produções consistente e úteis para compreender o Produtivismo Acadêmico. A aparente incoerência entre as duas abordagens dá lugar à Conclusão, onde foi possível constatar que são complementares e não incoerentes. E este caminho aponta novamente para o docente, presente e representado nas abordagens quantitativa e qualitativa, apresentando um outro lado nefasto do Produtivismo Acadêmico: o professor pesquisador como vítima e agente nesta cena. A ele recai todas pressões, exigências, desafios e a necessidade de sobrevivência. Estes dois lados vão apontar pela complementariedade das duas abordagens desta Tese, uma contribuição para o estudo do tema a compreender mais uma face do Produtivismo Acadêmico no Brasil