Using Search Engine Count Estimates as Indicators of Academic Impact: A Web-based Replication of Haggbloom et al.’s (2002) Study

  • Spörrle M
3Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Using a complex set of quantitative and qualitative indicators of scientific importance, Haggbloom et al. [1] compiled a ranking of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. The present study set out to replicate this rankordered list using simple search engine count estimates (SECEs) obtained from three popular internet search engines. In line with our expectations, our results revealed a small, but significant relationship between SECEs and the existing offline ranking when the query specified the scientist's field of research (i.e., psychology). Our results imply that SECEs may be considered easy to apply indicators of a researcher's impact. © Spörrle and Tumasjan.

References Powered by Scopus

Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics

3152Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Do Re Mi's of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences

1058Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization

874Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Search markets and search results: The case of Bing

24Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Vygotsky's theory on the Procrustes’ bed of linear thinking: Looking for structural–systemic Theseus to save the idea of ‘social formation of mind’

16Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Bibliometrics and citation analysis for the psychologist-manager: A review and select readings

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Spörrle, M. (2011). Using Search Engine Count Estimates as Indicators of Academic Impact: A Web-based Replication of Haggbloom et al.’s (2002) Study. The Open Psychology Journal, 4(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350101104010012

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

43%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 3

43%

Researcher 1

14%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 3

43%

Business, Management and Accounting 2

29%

Computer Science 1

14%

Psychology 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free