Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-xh45t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-07T15:04:11.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Citation Counts and More Citation Counts: Useful? Interesting? or Counterproductive?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

John P. Campbell
John P. Campbell*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P. Campbell, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 E. River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: campb006@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their focal article, Aguinis et al. (2017) categorized the 6,654 unique citations, summed across the six introductory industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology texts, in various ways. They then suggested how such data could be used to (a) infer the “state” of the scientist–practitioner divide; (b) document the extent of the movement of I-O psychologists to management schools; (c) evaluate the future prospects of I-O psychology as a field; and (d) provide guidance in how to define, measure, and reward “scholarly impact” (quotation marks added). This crosses the line from interesting to very counterproductive.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 610 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aguinis, H., & O'Boyle, E. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., Campbell, P. K., Bernal-Turnes, P., Drewry, J. M., Edgerton, B. T. (2017). Most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks: Implications for the science-practice divide, scholarly impact, and the future of the field. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (4), 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L, Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Cummings, T. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13 (4), 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Wilmot, M. P. (2018). The functioning of theory in IWOP. In Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of industrial, work, and organizational (IWOP) psychology: Volume 1 personnel psychology (2nd ed., pp. 4–38). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Chandler, C. G. (2015, August). Organizational effectiveness: Replacing a vague construct with a defined concept. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada, August 8–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34 (1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science's aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (6), 555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. (2014). Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: Institutional failure or individual fallibility? Journal of Management Studies, 51 (1), 118–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Citations to management articles: Cautions for the science about advice for the scientist. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), 507–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011). An epidemic of false claims. Scientific American, 304 (6), 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 259–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, P. A. (2008). Lost in publication: How measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (4), 640–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7 (6), 615–631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Boyle, E., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A. S. (2013). 2012 presidential address: On compassion in scholarship: Why should we care? Academy of Management Review, 38 (2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar