A recent study provided a list of journals considered to

A recent study provided a list of 14 journals considered to be leading in industrial design research. When examining the nature of these 14 journals, a distinction can be made between so-called design-relevant journals and design-focused journals. Design-relevant journals focus on a disciplinary area such as ergonomics or human-computer interaction. Design researchers use insights from these fields in their design research, and contribute to these fields when publishing their work in these journals. However, if design research is understood to focus on the development of and human interaction with products and services, as in Gemser et al.’s study, some of the papers being published in these design-relevant journals cannot really be called design research. Design-focused journals, on the other hand, do specifically focus on design research—even though they do cover a broad spectrum of design aspects.

Research Method
In this paper, we examine publication patterns in design research by examining articles published in peer-reviewed journals over a 10-year order crf hormone (2000–2009). The peer-reviewed journals included in our investigation are a subset of the 14 journals identified as leading in the industrial design field in Gemser et al.’s study in 2012. In that article, the authors defined and delimited design research as “research on developing and interacting with products and services.” Because we used this subset as our sampling frame, the present research on publication patterns in design research observes the same delimitation and thus excludes design research on architecture or landscape design, for example. For three of these 14 leading design journals—Journal of Design History, Design and Culture, and Journal of Design Research—there was no reliable information on citations, since these journals are not included in either Scopus or Web of Science. Because citation data is necessary to assess the impact of institutions in the design field, we decided to exclude these journals. The 11 remaining top design journals included in our study are listed in table 1. As noted earlier, we make a distinction between design-relevant and design-focused journals, thus table 1 specifies to which category the different journals belong.
To examine publication patterns in design research, here we build on existing methodological approaches used in other research fields to rank schools, departments or individual scholars. University rankings are traditionally based on faculty publishing aggregation where all publications are credited to the author’s affiliated university at the time of publication. We follow the same method for this paper. If a publication has multiple authors from different affiliations, the publication counts for each author and for each affiliation. This approach cumulates the number of publications each institution or author produced during the period examined. We adopt this ‘whole’ counting approach—rather than fractional or weighted counting—because it is considered easier to comprehend and interpret.
In prior ranking studies, either the institutional or departmental level is used to provide rankings. We focus on the institutional level. It would be difficult to rank design departments or design faculties, because universities may not have such departments and faculties, or sometimes the department or faculty of design is combined with other related fields. For example, the University of Technology Sydney has a “Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building,” while the University of Twente in the Netherlands has a design department that is part of the Faculty of Engineering Technology.
We have examined publication patterns not only by examining the number of papers that institutions and individual scholars publish, but also by examining the number of citations. Citations provide insight into the extent to which highly prolific authors have both contributed to the stock of available design knowledge, and defined—by means of their highly cited articles—part of the research agenda of the field. Information on articles and their citations in the 11 design journals between 2000 and 2009 were extracted from the Web of Science database. We supplemented the Web of Science data with data obtained from Scopus. To be more specific, Scopus was used for Design Studies and The Design Journal, because the Web of Science data did not cover the entire research period—Design Studies was included in the Web of Science database as of 2004, and in the Scopus database as of 2000; The Design Journal was included in the Web of Science database starting in 2009, and included in the Scopus database starting in 2005. Because there was no complete coverage of The Design Journal in Scopus—coverage began in 2005—publication data for 2000-2004 on author names, publication year, and authors’ affiliations were manually collected for this journal and added to the database. Because of the incomplete coverage in Scopus, citation data for articles published from 2000–2004 in The Design Journal are missing, which should be taken into account when interpreting the results. For the International Journal of Design we have publication and citation data from 2007 onwards—when the journal was established.