[
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