This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ale Ebrahim, N., Farhadi, H., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Chadegani, A. A., Farhadi, M., & Fooladi, M. (2013). Does it matter which citation tool is used to compare the H-index of a group of highly cited researchers? Management Educator: Courses, 7, 198–202.
Diamond, A. (1988). Citation counts for Nobel prize winners in economics. History of Economics Society Bulletin, 10(1), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104277160000548
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Park, J. (2014). An incomplete list of eminent psychologists of the modern era. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2, 20–32.
Endler, N., Rushton, J., & Roediger, H. (1978). Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian and US departments of psychology (1975). American Psychologist, 33, 1064–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.12.1064
Foss, D. J. (2016). Eminence and omniscience: Statistical and clinical prediction of merit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 913–916. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616662440
Freund, A. (2017). Why would I want to be famous? The ill-fated quest for fame in psychological research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1141–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617723148
Furnham, A. (1990). Quantifying quality: An argument in favour of citation counts. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 14, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877900140208
Furnham, A. (2018). Fame in psychology: A pilot study. Psychology, 9, 1284–1290. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.96078
Furnham, A. (2020). What I have learned from my Google Scholar and H-Index. Scientometrics, 122(2), 1249–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03316-4
Furnham, A., & Bonnett, C. (1992). British research productivity in psychology 1980–1989. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(12), 1333–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90176-P
Gingras, Y., & Wallace, M. L. (2010). Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: A bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007). Scientometrics, 82(2), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0035-9
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007). Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70, 811–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0313-3
Kochen, M., Crickman, R., & Blaivas, A. (1982). Distribution of scientific experts as recognized by peer consensus. Scientometrics, 4, 45–56.
Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. L. (2021). A new comparative citation analysis: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, and Web of Science. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 26, 145–163.
Liang, G., Lou, Y., & Hou, H. (2022). Revisiting the disruptive index: Evidence from the Nobel Prize-winning articles. Scientometrics, 127, 5721–5730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04499-z
Martini, M. C., Pelle, E., Poggi, F., et al. (2022). The role of citation networks to explain academic promotions: An empirical analysis of the Italian national scientific qualification. Scientometrics, 127, 5633–5659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04485-5
Nederhof, A. J., Luwel, M., & Moed, H. F. (2001). Assessing the quality of scholarly journals in Linguistics: An alternative to citation-based journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 51, 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010533232688
Roediger, H. L. (2016). Varieties of fame in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 882–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616662457
Rindermann, H., Becker, D., & Coyle, T. R. (2017). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: The Flynn effect and the future of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.061
Rindermann, H., Becker, D., & Coyle, T. R. (2020). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts’ background, controversial issues, and the media. Intelligence, 78, 101406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., et al. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101, 1113–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1365-9
Simonton, D. K. (2016). Giving credit where credit’s due. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 11(6), 888–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616660155
Steinhauser, G., Adlassnig, W., Ahau Risch, J., Anderlini, S., Arguriou, P., et al. (2012). Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 33, 359–376.
Sternberg, R. J. (2016a). ‘Am I famous yet?’ Judging scholarly merit in psychological science. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 11(6), 877–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616661777
Sternberg, R. J. (2016b). Psychology 101 ½: The unspoken rules for success in academia (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.
Zhou, Y., Wang, R., & Zeng, A. (2022). Predicting the impact and publication date of individual scientists’ future papers. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04286-w
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to half a dozen friends and an anonymous reviewer for a close reading of the paper and making a number of suggestions as to how to improve it.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Furnham, A. Peer nominations as scientometrics. Scientometrics 128, 1451–1458 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04597-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04597-y