References
- 1. Aksnes D.W., Langfeldt L., Wouters P. (2019) Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1). DOI: 10.1177/2158244019829575
- 2. Althouse B.M., West J.D., Bergstrom C.T., Bergstrom T. (2009) Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 60: 27-34. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20936
- 3. Bollen J., Van de Sompel H., Hagberg A., Chute R. (2009) A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4: e6022. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0006022
- 4. Bornmann L. (2011) Scientific peer review. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol., 45: 197-245. DOI: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
- 5. Copiello S. (2019) Research interest: Another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate. Scientometrics, 120: 351-360. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w
- 6. Copiello S. (2020) Multi-criteria altmetric scores are likely to be redundant with respect to a subset of the underlying information. Scientometrics, 124: 819-824. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03491-9
- 7. Croux C., Dehon C. (2010) Influence functions of the Spearman and Kendall correlation measures. Stat. Methods Appl., 19: 497-515. DOI: 10.1007/s10260-010-0142-z
- 8. Franceschet M. (2010) The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: a bibliometric analysis. J. Informetr., 4: 55–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.08.001
- 9. Gefen A. (2011). How high is a “high” Hirsch index in biomechanics research. J. Biomech., 44: 206-209. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.01.047
- 10. Gusenbauer M. (2019) Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118: 177-214. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5
- 11. Helmer S., Blumenthal D.B., Paschen K. (2020) What is meaningful research and how should be measure it? Scientometrics, 125: 153-169. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03649-5
- 12. Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., de Rijcke S., Rafols I. (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548): 429-431. DOI: 10.1038/520429a
- 13. Hirsch J.E. (2005) In index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 102(46): 16569-16572. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102
- 14. Knudson D. (2013) Impact and prestige of kinesiology-related journals. Comp. Psych., 2: 13. DOI: 10.2466/50.17. CP.2.13
- 15. Knudson D. (2015) Biomechanics scholar citations across academic ranks. Biomed. Hum. Kinet., 7: 142-146. DOI: 10.1515/bhk-2015-0021
- 16. Knudson D. (2017) Profiles of excellence in sports biomechanics research. In: Potthast W., Niehoff A., David S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Biomechanics in Sports. Cologne, Germany: German Sport University Cologne, pp. 831-834. https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol35/iss1/33
- 17. Knudson D. (2018) Profiles of young scholar award winners in biomechanics. In: Hume P.A., Alderson J., Wilson B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 36th Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports. Auckland, NZ: Auckland University of Technology, pp. 52-55. https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol36/iss1/12
- 18. Knudson D. (2019) Citation metrics of excellence in sports biomechanics. Sports Biomech., 18: 289-296. DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2017.1391328
- 19. Lee C.J., Sugimoto C.R., Zhang G., Cronin B. (2013) Bias in peer review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 64: 2-17. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784
- 20. Lepori B., Thelwall M., Hoorani B.H. (2018) Which US and European higher education institutions are visible in ResearchGate and what affects their RG score? J.. Informetr., 12: 806-818. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.07.001
- 21. Leydesdorff L. (2009) How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 60: 1327–1336. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21024
- 22. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L., Comins J. A., Milojevic S. (2016) Citations: Indicators of quality? The impact fallacy. Front. Res. Metrics Analytics, 1: Ar1. DOI: 10.3389/frma.2016.00001
- 23. Martin-Martin A., Ordun-Malea E., Thelwall M., Lopez-Cozar E.D. (2018) Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 253 subject categories. J. Informetr., 12: 1160-1177. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
- 24. Martin-Martin A., Thelwall, M., Ordun-Malea E., Lopez-Cozar E.D. (2021) Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A mulitdiscplinary of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126: 871-906. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
- 25. Memisevic H. (2022) Research interest score in Research-Gate: The silver bullet of scientometrics or the emperor’s new clothes? Cent. Asian J. Med. Hypotheses Ethics, 3: 187-191. DOI: 10.47316/cajmhe.2022.3.3.05
- 26. Memisevic H., Pasalic A., Mujkanovic E., Memisevic M. (2019) In search of a silver bullet: Evaluating research performance in Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Scientometric Res., 8: 125-130. DOI: 10.5530/jscires.8.3.27
- 27. Moed H.F. (2017) Applied evaluative informetrics. In Glanzel W. and Schubert A. (eds.) Qualitative and quantitative analysis of scientific and scholarly communication. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-60522-7
- 28. Orduna-Malea E., Martin-Martin A., Thelwall M., Lopez-Cozar E. (2017) Do ResearchGate scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112: 443-460. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9
- 29. Ortega J.L. (2017) Toward a homogenization of academic social sites: A longitudinal study of profiles in Academia. edu, Google Scholar Citations and ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 41: 812-825. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0012
- 30. Rossner M., Van Epps H., Hill E. (2008) Irreproducible results: A response to Thompson Scientific. J. Cell Biol., 180: 254-255. DOI: 10.1083/jcb.200801036
- 31. Seglen P.O. (1992) The skewness of science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 43: 628-638. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571-(199210)43:9<628::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0
- 32. Singh V.K., Srichandan S.S. Lathabi H.H. (2022) ResearchGate and Google Scholar: How much do they differe in publications, citations and different metrics and why? Scientometrics, 127: 1515-1542. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04264-2
- 33. Sugimoto C.R., Larivière V. (2018) Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- 34. Sugimoto C.R., Work S., Larivière V., Haustein, S. (2017) Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 68: 2037-2062. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23833
- 35. Van Noorden R. (2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512: 126-129. DOI: 10.1038/512126a
- 36. Walker D.A. (2003) JMASM9: Converting Kendall’s Tau for correlation or meta-analytic analyses. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods, 2: 525-530. DOI: 10.22237/jmasm/1067646360
- 37. Waltman L. (2016) A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J. Informetr., 10: 365-391. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
- 38. Wilsdon J., Allen L., Belfiore E., Campbell P., Stephen Curry S.H., Jones R., Kain R., Kerridge S., Thelwall M., Jane Tinkler I.V., Wouters P., Hill J. Johnson, B. (2015) The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Higher Education Funding Council for England, Bristol.
- 39. Zerem E. (2017) The ranking of scientists based on publications assessment. J. Biomed. Inform., 75: 107-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2017.10.007
- 40. Zhou Y.B., Lu L., Li M. (2012) Quantifying the influence of scientists and their publications: distinguishing between prestige and popularity. New J. Phys., 14: 033033. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/3/033033