Citation Metrics in Psychological Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 174569162096412
Author(s):  
Nina Radosic ◽  
Ed Diener

We present norms for faculty citation counts based on 811 faculty members at 30 PhD-granting psychology departments in the United States across the range of the National Research Council rankings. The metrics were highly skewed, with most scientists having a low to moderate number of citations of their work and a few scientists having extremely high numbers. However, the median per-year citation count was 149, showing widespread scientific contributions across scholars. Some individuals in lower ranked departments are more highly cited than the average scholar in higher ranked departments, with enormous variation in citation counts in both the low- and high-ranking departments. Citation counts overall have risen in recent years, and the citations of early-career scholars are increasing at a faster rate than their senior colleagues did at the same point in their careers. We found that citation counts at the beginning of scientists’ careers substantially predict lifetime citation success. Young scholars’ citation counts are associated with obtaining positions at higher ranked universities. Finally, we found no significant differences for subfields of psychology. In sum, although a few highly productive scientists have a very large influence, trends reveal that contributions to psychological science are growing over time, widespread, and not limited to a few stars and elite departments.

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-311
Author(s):  
Hannah June Kim ◽  
Bernard Grofman

ABSTRACTThis article updates the Masuoka, Grofman, and Feld 2002 dataset that identified the then-3,719 faculty in political science PhD-granting departments in the United States. That dataset contained information about each faculty member, including date and PhD-granting department, lifetime citation counts, fields of interest, and school of employment. We similarly create a database with the 4,089 currently tenured or tenure-track faculty, along with emeritus faculty, at US PhD-granting departments ca. 2017–2018. Using Google Scholar Profiles, along with manual counts for those who do not have a profile, we sort the dataset by citation count, PhD cohort, field of interest, and gender. This article identifies the 100 currently most-cited scholars, the 25 most-cited in each PhD cohort and subfield, the 40 most-cited women scholars, and the 25 most-cited emeriti. The full list of The Political Science 400 is available in an online appendix.


Author(s):  
Pachisa Kulkanjanapiban ◽  
Tipawan Silwattananusarn

<p>This paper shows a significant comparison of two primary bibliographic data sources at the document level of Scopus and Dimensions. The emphasis is on the differences in their document coverage by institution level of aggregation. The main objective is to assess whether Dimensions offers at the institutional level good new possibilities for bibliometric analysis as at the global level. The results of a comparative study of the citation count profiles of articles published by faculty members of Prince of Songkla University (PSU) in Dimensions and Scopus from the year the databases first included PSU-authored papers (1970 and 1978, respectively) through the end of June 2020. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of 19,846 articles indexed in Dimensions and 13,577 indexed in Scopus. The main finding was that the number of citations received by Dimensions was highly correlated with citation counts in Scopus. Spearman’s correlation between citation counts in Dimensions and Scopus was a high and mighty relationship. The findings mainly affect Dimensions’ possibilities as instruments for carrying out bibliometric analysis of university members’ research productivity. University researchers can use Dimensions to retrieve information, and the design policies can be used to evaluate research using <br />scientific databases.</p>


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samy A. Azer ◽  
Sarah Azer

BACKGROUND Citation counts of articles have been used by universities and funding bodies to measure scientific outcomes and assess suitability for grant applications. However, citation counts are not without limitations. With the rise of social media, altmetric scores may provide an alternative assessment tool. OBJECTIVE The aims of this study are to assess the characteristics of highly cited articles in medical professionalism and their altmetric scores. METHODS The Web of Science was searched for top-cited articles in medical professionalism, and the characteristics of each article were identified. The altmetric database was searched to identify report for each identified article. A model to assess the relationship between the number of citations and each of key characteristics as well as altmetric scores was developed. RESULTS No correlations were found between the number of citations and number of years since publication (p=0.192), number of institutes (p=0.081), number of authors (p=0.270), females in authorship (p=0.15), or number of grants (p=0.384). The altmetric scores varied from zero to 155, total= 806, median=5.0, (IQR=20). Twitter (54%) and Mendeley (62%) were the most popular altmetric resources. No correlation was found between the number of citations and the altmetric scores (p=0.661). To further assess these variables a model was developed using multivariate analysis; did not show significant differences across subgroups. The topics covered were learning and teaching professionalism, curriculum issues, professional and unprofessional behavior, defining and measuring professionalism. The articles were mainly published in Academic Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of General Internal Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine. CONCLUSIONS No correlation was found between citations and any of the article parameters. Altmetric scores of articles were not significantly correlated with citations. Highly cited articles were produced mainly by the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The study reflects the emerging role of altmetric and social media in the dissemination of research. Future studies should investigate the specific features of highly cited articles and factors that reinforce distribution of research data among scholars and non-scholars. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable.


2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bong Gee Jang

Although there has been a significant increase in the number of minority faculty members in higher education, little is known about potential barriers and challenges we face during their early career development. In this counter-story article, I share my own professional experiences regarding the choices I made and obstacles I faced in developing my own career including both teaching and research. Compared with mainstream early career scholars, I realized that there are certain areas or methods that I was expected to teach or research. I hope that my counter-story presented in this article can contribute to understanding the conflicts and labels that international faculty may face and reframing them as potential assets that we can develop and bring into meaningful literacy practice.


2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 596-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Clements ◽  
Nancy D. Connell ◽  
Clarissa Dirks ◽  
Mohamed El-Faham ◽  
Alastair Hay ◽  
...  

Numerous studies are demonstrating that engaging undergraduate students in original research can improve their achievement in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and increase the likelihood that some of them will decide to pursue careers in these disciplines. Associated with this increased prominence of research in the undergraduate curriculum are greater expectations from funders, colleges, and universities that faculty mentors will help those students, along with their graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, develop an understanding and sense of personal and collective obligation for responsible conduct of science (RCS). This Feature describes an ongoing National Research Council (NRC) project and a recent report about educating faculty members in culturally diverse settings (Middle East/North Africa and Asia) to employ active-learning strategies to engage their students and colleagues deeply in issues related to RCS. The NRC report describes the first phase of this project, which took place in Aqaba and Amman, Jordan, in September 2012 and April 2013, respectively. Here we highlight the findings from that report and our subsequent experience with a similar interactive institute in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Our work provides insights and perspectives for faculty members in the United States as they engage undergraduate and graduate students, as well as postdoctoral fellows, to help them better understand the intricacies of and connections among various components of RCS. Further, our experiences can provide insights for those who may wish to establish “train-the-trainer” programs at their home institutions.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinning Mi ◽  
Xiaoxiao Wang ◽  
Ning Yang ◽  
Yongzheng Han ◽  
Yue Li ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: In line with aging populations and increased application of anesthesia and surgery, perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) has received growing attention worldwide. Considerable research into PND is being conducted; however, the quantity and quality of such research have not been reported. Through a retrospective bibliometric analysis, this study aimed to identify and characterize the top 100 cited publications on PND. Methods: We searched the Web of Science database to find the top 100 cited articles focusing on PND. We collected bibliographic information, including year of publication, country of origin, article type, published journal, citation count, and authorship. To determine changes with time, we compared older and newer articles. Results: The top 100 cited articles were published between 1955 and 2016; the number of citations ranged from 111 to 1248. The United States had the most published papers; clinical trials were the most common article type. The specialty journals of Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia were the two most cited journals. Newer papers had a comparable number of citations to older articles, but the former had higher citation rates, greater funding disclosures, more focus on basic research, and more open access publications. Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the most cited articles and highlights the increasing attention on PND. High-quality clinical trials with a greater journal impact factor received more citations. However, there has been growth in the number of basic science studies as an area of research with respect to the pathogenesis of PND.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinning Mi ◽  
Xiaoxiao Wang ◽  
Ning Yang ◽  
Yongzheng Han ◽  
Yue Li ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In line with aging populations and increased application of anesthesia and surgery, perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) has received growing attention worldwide. Considerable researches into PND are being conducted; however, the quantity and quality of such researches have not been reported. Through a retrospective bibliometric analysis, this study aims to identify and characterize the top 100 cited publications on PND. Methods We searched the Web of Science database to find the top 100 cited articles focusing on PND. We collected bibliographic information, including year of publication, country of origin, article type, published journal, citation count, and authorship. To determine changes with time, we compared older and newest articles. Results The top 100 cited articles were published between 1955 and 2016; the number of citations ranged from 111 to 1248. The United States had the most published papers; clinical trial was the most common article type. The specialty journals of Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia were the two most cited journals. Newest articles had a comparable number of citations to older articles, but the former had higher annual citation rates, greater funding disclosures, more focus on basic research, and more open access publications. Conclusions This study provides a comprehensive overview of the most cited articles and highlights the increasing attention on PND. High-quality clinical trials with a greater journal impact factor receive more citations. However, there has been a growth in the number of basic science studies as an area of research with respect to the pathogenesis of PND.


PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e1887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Shanahan

Background.The Journal Citation Reports journal impact factors (JIFs) are widely used to rank and evaluate journals, standing as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field. However, numerous criticisms have been made of use of a JIF to evaluate importance. This problem is exacerbated when the use of JIFs is extended to evaluate not only the journals, but the papers therein. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between the number of citations and journal IF for identical articles published simultaneously in multiple journals.Methods.Eligible articles were consensus research reporting statements listed on the EQUATOR Network website that were published simultaneously in three or more journals. The correlation between the citation count for each article and the median journal JIF over the published period, and between the citation count and number of article accesses was calculated for each reporting statement.Results.Nine research reporting statements were included in this analysis, representing 85 articles published across 58 journals in biomedicine. The number of citations was strongly correlated to the JIF for six of the nine reporting guidelines, with moderate correlation shown for the remaining three guidelines (medianr= 0.66, 95% CI [0.45–0.90]). There was also a strong positive correlation between the number of citations and the number of article accesses (medianr= 0.71, 95% CI [0.5–0.8]), although the number of data points for this analysis were limited. When adjusted for the individual reporting guidelines, each logarithm unit of JIF predicted a median increase of 0.8 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [−0.4–5.2]), and each logarithm unit of article accesses predicted a median increase of 0.1 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [−0.9–1.4]). This model explained 26% of the variance in citations (median adjustedr2= 0.26, range 0.18–1.0).Conclusion.The impact factor of the journal in which a reporting statement was published was shown to influence the number of citations that statement will gather over time. Similarly, the number of article accesses also influenced the number of citations, although to a lesser extent than the impact factor. This demonstrates that citation counts are not purely a reflection of scientific merit and the impact factor is, in fact, auto-correlated.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Bowering Mullen

Scholarly communication and open access practices in psychological science are rapidly evolving. However, most published works that focus on scholarly communication issues do not target the specific discipline, and instead take a more “one size fits all” approach. When it comes to scholarly communication, practices and traditions vary greatly across the disciplines. It is important to look at issues such as open access (of all types), reproducibility, research data management, citation metrics, the emergence of preprint options, the evolution of new peer review models, coauthorship conventions, and use of scholarly networking sites such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu from a disciplinary perspective. Important issues in scholarly publishing for psychology include uptake of authors’ use of open access megajournals, how open science is represented in psychology journals, challenges of interdisciplinarity, and how authors avail themselves of green and gold open access strategies. This overview presents a discipline-focused treatment of selected scholarly communication topics that will allow psychology researchers and others to get up to speed on this expansive topic. Further study into researcher behavior in terms of scholarly communication in psychology would create more understanding of existing culture as well as provide early career researchers with a more effective roadmap to the current landscape. As no other single work provides a study of scholarly communication and open access in psychology, this work aims to partially fill that niche.


2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (13) ◽  
pp. 1425-1436 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Ahmad ◽  
M.K. Alam ◽  
N.S. Jakubovics ◽  
F. Schwendicke ◽  
J.A. Asif

Since its inception in 1919, the Journal of Dental Research has continually published high-quality articles that span the breadth of research topics relevant to dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine. As part of the journal’s centennial celebration, we conducted an electronic search on Scopus to identify and analyze the top 100 most cited articles from 1919 to 2018. Since Scopus does not capture older citations, we conducted an additional analysis by Google Scholar to identify key articles published in the first 50 y of the journal. Based on Scopus, the articles were ranked in descending order per their citation counts. The citation counts of the 100 most cited articles varied from 262 to 1,503. The year in which the largest number of top 100 articles were published was 2004 ( n = 6). Within the top 100, the majority of articles originated from the United States ( n = 52). Research Reports–Biomaterials & Bioengineering was the most frequent category of cited articles ( n = 35). There was no significant association between total citation count and time since publication (correlation coefficient = –0.051, P = 0.656). However, there was a significant negative association of citation density (correlation coefficient = –0.610, P < 0.01) with time since publication. Our analyses demonstrate the broad reach of the journal and the dynamics in citation patterns and research agenda over its 100-y history. There is considerable evidence of the high variance in research output, when measured via citations, across the globe. Moreover, it remains unclear how patients’ priorities and dental health care needs are aligned with the perceived influence of single research pieces identified by our search. Our findings may help to inspire future research in tackling these inequalities and highlight the need for conceptualizing research priorities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document