<p>
</p>
<p>The FSP is one useful measure of faculties, but it’s got some limitations, too. First, it’s based on proprietary, non-public data and many universities have expressed concerns that they have no way of verifying the information on which it’s based, or for correcting errors. Second, it apparently makes no distinction between publishing in a prestigious journal and a third-rate one; each counts equally, even though one is obviously a more significant achievement than the other. Third, the greatest and most influential scholars are not necessarily the most prolific. Ludwig Wittgenstein, possibly the most influential philosopher of the 20 Century (in the English-speaking world, at any rate), basically published one book in his lifetime; another was published posthumously. Ronald Coase, the hugely influential University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate, wrote only a small handful of articles over the course of an entire career. Over a long time span their influence would be captured by citation counts, but the FSP uses citation counts over such a short time-span, some 3 or 4 years, that both Wittgenstein and Coase would probably have been rated as having close to zero scholarly productivity at the peak of their most creative and original periods. Not to say the FSP is worthless, but like the US News PA rating it has to be taken with a grain of salt. It’s just one more highly imperfect data point.</p>