IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v118y2019i1d10.1007_s11192-018-2966-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some reflections on being cited 10,000 times

Author

Listed:
  • James Hartley

    (Keele University)

Abstract

This letter describes the author’s reactions to being cited 10,000 times in Google Scholar. Data are provided to illustrate differences between the numbers of citations for books and edited works and between papers on different topics and in different styles.

Suggested Citation

  • James Hartley, 2019. "Some reflections on being cited 10,000 times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 375-381, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:118:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2966-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2966-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2966-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-018-2966-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Hartley, 2017. "Authors and their citations: a point of view," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 1081-1084, February.
    2. Yves Fassin, 2018. "A new qualitative rating system for scientific publications and a fame index for academics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(11), pages 1396-1399, November.
    3. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Rejoinder to “Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1131-1137, May.
    4. Pablo Diniz Batista & Igor Marques-Carneiro & Leduc Hermeto de Almeida Fauth & Márcia de Oliveira Reis Brandão, 2018. "Web of Science: Showing a Bug Today That Can Mislead Scientific Research Output Prediction," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(1), pages 21582440187, February.
    5. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Javed Mostafa, 2018. "A note of concern and context: On careful use of terminologies," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(3), pages 347-348, March.
    6. Rodrigo Costas & Thomas Franssen, 2018. "Reflections around ‘the cautionary use’ of the h-index: response to Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1125-1130, May.
    7. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1107-1113, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Margaret K. Merga & Sayidi Mat Roni & Shannon Mason, 2020. "Should Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2505-2522, December.
    2. Balázs Győrffy & Gyöngyi Csuka & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2020. "Is there a golden age in publication activity?—an analysis of age-related scholarly performance across all scientific disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1081-1097, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guangyuan Hu & Lei Wang & Rong Ni & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Which h-index? An exploration within the Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1225-1233, June.
    2. Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Ricardo Brito, 2019. "Probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs: basis and use of a robust method of research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 213-235, April.
    3. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Rejoinder to “Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1131-1137, May.
    4. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2018. "The Google Scholar h-index: useful but burdensome metric," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 631-635, October.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Loet Leydesdorff, 2018. "Count highly-cited papers instead of papers with h citations: use normalized citation counts and compare “like with like”!," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1119-1123, May.
    6. Johanna M. Askeridis, 2018. "An h index for Mendeley: comparison of citation-based h indices and a readership-based hmen index for 29 authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 615-624, October.
    7. Rodrigo Costas & Thomas Franssen, 2018. "Reflections around ‘the cautionary use’ of the h-index: response to Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1125-1130, May.
    8. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    9. You Song & Fangling Situ & Hongjun Zhu & Jinzhi Lei, 2018. "To be the Prince to wake up Sleeping Beauty: the rediscovery of the delayed recognition studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 9-24, October.
    10. Hui Fang, 2019. "A transition stage co-citation criterion for identifying the awakeners of sleeping beauty publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 307-322, October.
    11. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    12. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2021. "The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3667-3672, April.
    13. Boris Forthmann & Mark A. Runco, 2020. "An Empirical Test of the Inter-Relationships between Various Bibliometric Creative Scholarship Indicators," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, June.
    14. Dosso, Dennis & Silvello, Gianmaria, 2020. "Data credit distribution: A new method to estimate databases impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    15. Margaret K. Merga & Sayidi Mat Roni & Shannon Mason, 2020. "Should Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2505-2522, December.
    16. Haoran Zhu & Lei Lei, 2022. "The Research Trends of Text Classification Studies (2000–2020): A Bibliometric Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, April.
    17. Adam Emmer, 2019. "The careers behind and the impact of solo author articles in Nature and Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 825-840, August.
    18. Yves Fassin, 2021. "Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5305-5319, June.
    19. Boris Forthmann, 2023. "Researcher capacity estimation based on the Q model: a generalized linear mixed model perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4753-4764, August.
    20. Judit Dobránszki & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2019. "Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 387-398, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:118:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2966-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.