Association of ResearchGate research influence score with other metrics of top cited sports biomechanics scholars

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

4. Bornmann L. (2011) Scientific peer review. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol., 45: 197-245. DOI: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Copiello S. (2019) Research interest: Another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate. Scientometrics, 120: 351-360. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

14. Knudson D. (2013) Impact and prestige of kinesiology-related journals. Comp. Psych., 2: 13. DOI: 10.2466/50.17. CP.2.13 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

15. Knudson D. (2015) Biomechanics scholar citations across academic ranks. Biomed. Hum. Kinet., 7: 142-146. DOI: 10.1515/bhk-2015-0021 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Search in Google Scholar

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 Search in Google Scholar

18. Knudson D. (2019) Citation metrics of excellence in sports biomechanics. Sports Biomech., 18: 289-296. DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2017.1391328 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

33. Sugimoto C.R., Larivière V. (2018) Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Search in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

35. Van Noorden R. (2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512: 126-129. DOI: 10.1038/512126a Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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. Search in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

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 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar