Citation metrics of excellence in sports biomechanics research

References

• Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273–289. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Society of Biomechanics. (2017). Awards. Retrieved from http://www.asbweb.org/awards-and-grants/
   Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1381–1385. doi:10.1002/asi.20609
   Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 286–291. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (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. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1161-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of the ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5, 105–125.10.1353/pla.2005.0003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Declaration on Research Assessment. (2015). Declaration on research assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ascb.org/dora/
   Google Scholar
• Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á (2013). Ranking journals: Could google scholar metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and scimago journal rank? Learned Publishing, 26, 101–113. doi:10.1087/20130206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derrick, G. E., Haynes, A., Chapman, S., & Hall, W. D. (2011). The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health. PLoS One, 6(4), e18521. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018521
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2016). The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 174–182. doi:10.1016/joi2015.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gefen, A. (2011). How high is a “high” Hirsch index in biomechanics research? Journal of Biomechanics, 44, 206–208. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.01.047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, N. (2014). The Kardashian index: A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology, 15, 424 http://genomebiology.com/2014/15/42410.1186/s13059-014-0424-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harzing, A-W. (2016). Harzing’s publish or Perish. Retrieved from http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
   Google Scholar
• Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2014). hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics, 99, 811–821. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1208-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431. doi:10.1038/520429a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins, W. G. (2009). The 2009 race for impact by journals in sport and exercise science and medicine, and Tom Reilly’s H index. Sportscience, 12, 24–27.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. A., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2016). Multiple citation indicators and their composite across scientific disciplines. PLOS Biology, 14(7), e1002501. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Society of Biomechanics in Sports. (2017). Awards. Retrieved from http://isbs.org/awards
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2012). Twenty-year trends of authorship and sampling in applied biomechanics research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114, 16–20. doi:10.2466/11.PMS.114.1.16-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2015a). Evidence of citation bias in kinesiology-related journals. Chronicle of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 26(1), 5–12.
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2015b). Biomechanics scholar citations across academic ranks. Biomedical Human Kinetics, 7, 142–146. doi:10.1515/bhk-2015-0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2015c). Kinesiology faculty citations across academic rank. Quest, 67, 346–351. doi:10.1080/00336297.2015.1082144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2017a). 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 (pp. 831–834). Cologne, Germany: German Sport University Cologne.
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2017b). Twenty years of authorship, sampling, and references in kinesiology research reports. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 1, 44–52. doi:10.1080/24711616.2017.1282760
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D., Morrow, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85, 127–135. doi:10.1080/02701367.2014.898117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosmulski, M. (2012). The role of references in scientific papers: Cited papers as objects of research. Research Evaluation, 21, 87–88. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvr004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langfeldt, L. (2001). The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome. Social Studies of Science, 31, 820–841.10.1177/030631201031006002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus versus Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105–2125. doi:10.1001/asi.20677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moed, H. F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34, 575–583. doi:10.3152/030234207X255179
   Google Scholar
• Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). Peer review and the h-index: Two studies. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 221–232.10.1016/j.joi.2009.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., & Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, 179, 1091–1092. doi:10.1083/jcb.2007.11140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruscio, J., Seaman, F., D’Oriano, C., Stremlo, E., & Mahalchik, K. (2012). Measuring scholarly impact using modern citation-based indices. Measurement, 10, 123–146. doi:10.1080/15366367.2012.711147
   Google Scholar
• Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314, 487–502.10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
   Google Scholar
• Tahira, M., Abdullah, A., Alias, R. A., & Bakri, A. (2016). Evaluation of new research performance indices at the researcher level. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666916674251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters, W. H. (2009). Google Scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision. Libraries and the Academy, 9, 5–24. doi:10.1353/pla.0.0034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J. W., & Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101, 125–158. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1423-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar