Study aim: citations to the publications of a scholar have been used as a measure of the quality or influence of their research record. A world-wide descriptive study of the citations to the publications of biomechanics scholars of various academic ranks was conducted.
Material and methods: Google Scholar Citations was searched for user profiles reporting “biomechanics” as an interest area and data recorded if they had at least one citation to their publications. Total citations, academic rank, and country were recorded for 2,067 scholars from 79 countries. Additional data were collected and analyzed for most cited (top 15%) biomechanics scholars holding the rank of professor.
Results: there was a significant (p < 0.0001) difference in the distribution of citations between all ranks, and all ranks had large variation and were positively skewed. The ranking of the most cited scholar profiles at the rank of professor was influenced by normalizing citation counts for numbers of co-authors.
Conclusions: percentile rank citation data from this study may be useful to supplement peer-evaluation of biomechanics scholar’s Google Scholar publication records, particularly if the number of co-authors contributing their citations is taken into account.
1. Al-Herz W., H. Haider, M. Al-Bahhar, A. Sadeq (2014) Honorary authorship in biomedical journals: How common is it and why does it exist? J. Med. Ethics., 40: 346-348.
2. Baird L., M. C Oppenheim (1994) Do citations matter? J. Inf. Sci., 20: 2-15.
3. Batista P.D., M.G. Campiteli, O. Kinouchi, A.S. Martinez (2006) Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68: 179-189.
4. Bornmann L., W. Marx (2014) How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics, 98: 487-509.
5. Cronin B. (2001) Hyperauthorship: a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 52: 558-569.
6. Delgado-Loped-Cozar E., A. Cabezas-Clavjo (2013) Ranking journals: Could google scholar metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and Scimago journal rank? Learned Publishing, 26: 101–114.
7. de Winter J.C.F., A.A. Zadpoor, D. Dodou (2014) The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98: 1547-1565.
8. Galloway L.M., A.E. Rauh (2014) Using google scholar citations to profile scholars’ work. Issues Sci. Technol. Librarianship, 78. DOI:10.5062/F4319SWZ
9. Gefen A. (2011) How high is a “high” Hirsch index in biomechanics research? J. Biomech., 44: 206-208.
10. Ghosh J.S. (1975) Uncitedness of articles in Nature, a multi-disciplinary scientific journal. Inf. Process Manag., 11: 165-169.
11. Guliak F., C.R. Jacobs (2011) The H-index: Use and overuse. J. Biomech., 44: 208-209.
12. Hagen N.T. (2008) Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, 3(12): e4021. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0004021
13. Hicks D., P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. de Rijcke, I. Rafols (2015) The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520: 429-431.
14. Knudson D. (2012) Twenty-year trends of authorship and sampling in applied biomechanics research. Perceptual Motor Skills, 114: 16-20.
15. Knudson D. (2014) Citation rates for highly-cited papers from different sub-disciplinary areas within kinesiology. Chron. Kinesiol. Higher Educ., 25(2): 9-17.
16. Knudson D. (2015a.) Citation rate of highly-cited papers in 100 kinesiology-related journals. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci., 19: 44-50.
17. Knudson D. (2015b) Evidence of citation bias in kinesiology-related journals. Chron. Kinesiol. Higher Educ., 26(1): 5-12.
18. Knudson D. (In press) Kinesiology faculty citations across academic rank. Quest, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2015.1082144
19. Knudson D., J. Chow (2008) North American perception of the prestige of biomechanics serials. Gait Posture, 27: 559-563.
20. Knudson D., J. Ostarello (2010) Influential literature in applied sports biomechanics. In: R. Jensen, W. Ebben, E. Petushek, C. Richter, K. Roemer (Ed.). Scientific Proceedings of the 28thConference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports; pp.765-768. Marquette, MI: Northern Michigan University.
21. Kosmulski M. (2012) The role of references in scientific papers: Cited papers as objects of research. Res. Eval., 21: 87-88.
22. Liebowitz S.J. (2014) Willful blindness: The inefficient reward structure in academic research. Econ. Inquiry, 52: 1267-1283.
23. Opthof T., R. Coronel, H.M. Piper (2004) Impact factors: No totum pro parte by skewness of citation. Cardiovasc. Res., 61: 201-203.
24. Ortega J.L., I.F. Aguillo (2012) Science is all in the eye of the beholder: Keyword maps in Google Scholar Citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 63: 2370-2377.
25. Papatheodorou S.I., T.A. Trikalinos, J.P.A. Ioannidis (2008) Inflated number of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 61: 546-551.
26. Seglen P.O. (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br. Med. J., 314: 497-502.
27. Stern R.E. (1990) Uncitedness in the biomedical literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 41: 193-196.
28. Van Dalen H.P., K. Henkens (2004) Demographers and their journals: Who remains uncited after ten years? Pop. Dev. Rev., 30: 489-506
29. Weeks W.B., A.E. Wallace, B.C.S. Kimberly (2004) Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Soc. Sci. Med., 59: 1949-1954.