, Volume 94, Issue 2, pp 523–539 | Cite as

How does scientific success relate to individual and organizational characteristics? A scientometric study of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries

  • Hans P. W. Bauer
  • Gabriel Schui
  • Alexander von Eye
  • Günter Krampen


Purpose: To provide up-to-date bibliometric reference data describing the output and success of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries, including lifetime publication and citation numbers, and to investigate associations of bibliometric measures with academic status and gender as well as the department characteristics of size and quota of senior researchers. Method Queried literature databases using an extensive online register of academic psychologists in the German-speaking countries, obtaining valid data for 85 % (N = 1742) of the population of interest. Findings Skewed distributions for publications and citations; maximum number of German-language (=native) publications much higher than maximum number of English-language publications; relatively large part of population publishing almost exclusively in German; publication count predictable by academic status, gender, department size, and quota of senior researchers; citation count predictable by publication count, status, department size, and quota of senior researchers; department characteristics interact with individual characteristics to produce specific conditions under which publication count and citation count are higher or lower than expected: combination of female gender, small department size and large quota of senior researchers is associated with particularly increased publication count; female gender and large department size are associated with decreased publication count; high publication count, large department size and low quota of senior researchers are associated with increased citation count; low publication count and large quota of senior researchers are associated with decreased citation count. Conclusions Reference values for scientific output provided in this study provide an anchor for monitoring and international comparison; despite considerable noise in data, we show that interactions of individual and organizational characteristics are relevant for scientific success and should be investigated further, e.g. by adopting various measures of organizational diversity and tracing a population longitudinally.


German-speaking countries Research output Psychologists Department characteristics Academic status Gender 

Mathematics Subject Classification


JEL Classification



  1. Aksnes, D. W., & Rip, A. (2009). Researchers’ perceptions of citations. Research Policy, 38, 895–905. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauserman, R. (1997). International representation in the psychological literature. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 107–112. doi: 10.1080/002075997400908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cheung, Y. L. (2010). First publications in refereed English journals: Difficulties, coping strategies, and recommendations for student training. System, 38, 134–141. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duffy, R. D., Jadidian, A., Webster, G. D., & Sandell, K. J. (2011). The research productivity of academic psychologists: Assessment, trends, and best practice recommendations. Scientometrics, 89, 207–227. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0452-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission. (1999). Women and science: Mobilising women to enrich European research.COM (2009) 447 final. Retrieved December 13, 2011, from
  7. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 359–375. doi: 10.1007/BF02019306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost science in the third world. Scientific American, 273(2), 76–83.Google Scholar
  9. Gigerenzer, G., Rösler, F., Spada, H., Amelang, M., Bierhoff, H. W., Ferstl, R., et al. (1999). Internationalisierung der psychologischen Forschung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz: Sieben Empfehlungen [Internationalisation of psychological research in Germany, Austria and Switzerland: Seven recommendations]. Psychologische Rundschau, 50, 101–105. doi: 10.1026//0033-3042.50.2.101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodman, L. A. (1973). Causal analysis of data from panel studies and other kinds of surveys. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1135–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Havránek, T., & Lienert, G. A. (1984). Local and regional versus global contingency testing. Biometrical Journal, 26, 483–494.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoernes, G. E., & Heilweil, M. F. (1964). Introduction to Boolean algebra and logic design. New York: McGraw-Hill.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Horta, H., & Lacy, T. A. (2011). How does size matter for science? Exploring the effects of research unit size on academics’ scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors. Science and Public Policy, 38, 449–462. doi: 10.3152/030234211X12960315267813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson, S. E., & Ruderman, M. N. (1995). Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krampen, G., & Schui, G. (2009). ZPID-Monitor 2007 zur Internationalität der Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der Kurzbericht [ZPID-monitor 2007 on the internationality of psychology in the German-speaking countries: Short report]. Psychologische Rundschau, 60, 184–185. doi: 10.1026/0033-3042.60.3.184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krampen, G., & Wiesenhütter, J. (1993). Bibliometrische Befunde zur Entwicklung der Teildisziplinen der Psychologie [Bibliometric findings on the development of subdisciplines of psychology]. Psychologische Rundschau, 44, 25–34.Google Scholar
  17. Krampen, G., Montada, L., Müller, M. M., & Schui, G. (2005). Internationalität und Internationalisierung der deutschsprachigen Psychologie [Internationality and internationalization of German-language psychology]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  18. Krampen, G., Schui, G., & Bauer, H. (2011a). ZPID-Monitor 2009 zur internationalität der Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der Kurzbericht [ZPID-Monitor 2009 on the internationality of psychology in the German-speaking countries: Short report]. Psychologische Rundschau, 62, 244–248. doi: 10.1026/0033-3042/a000094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krampen, G., von Eye, A., & Schui, G. (2011b). Forecasting trends of development of psychology from a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 87, 687–694. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0357-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leydesdorff, L., & Shin, J. C. (2011). How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1146–1155. doi: 10.1002/asi.21511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lienert, G. A., & Krauth, J. (1975). Configural frequency analysis as a statistical tool for defining types. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275, 793–796. doi: 10.1126/science.275.5301.793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moed, H. F., Luwel, M., Houben, J. A., Spruyt, E., & Berghe, H. (1998). The effects of changes in the funding structure of the Flemish universities on their research capacity, productivity and impact during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Scientometrics, 43, 231–255. doi: 10.1007/BF02458409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montada, L., & Krampen, G. (2001). Internationalität und Internationalisierung der deutschsprachigen Psychologie [Internationality and internationalisation of psychology in the German-speaking countries]. In R. K. Silbereisen & D. Frey (Eds.), Perspektiven der Psychologie. Einführung und Standortbestimmung (pp. 282–300). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  25. Navarrete-Cortes, J., Fernandez-Lopez, J. A., Lopez-Baena, A., Quevedo-Blasco, R., & Buela-Casal, G. (2010). Global psychology: A bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications. Universitas Psychologica, 9, 553–567.Google Scholar
  26. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1067–1101. doi: 10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2010). The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, 19, 347–360. doi: 10.3152/095820210X12809191250889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruest-Archambault, E. (2008). Benchmarking policy measures for gender equality in science. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  29. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 36, 311–324. doi: 10.1007/BF02129597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schui, G., & Krampen, G. (2007). Zur Internationalität der Pädagogischen Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich. Personen- und fachbezogene bibliometrische Publikations- und Zitationsanalysen [On the internationality of educational psychology in the German-speaking countries. Person- and discipline-centered bibliometric publication and citation analyses]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smalheiser, N. R., & Torvik, V. I. (2009). Author name disambiguation. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43, 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tack, W. H. (1994). Bericht über Reaktionen auf einen Bericht: Zu Keul, Gigerenzer und Stroebes SSCI-Analyse [reactions to Keul, Gigerenzer and Stroebe’s SSCI analysis]. Psychologische Rundschau, 45, 108–111.Google Scholar
  33. van Raan, A. F. J., Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2011). Severe language effect in university rankings: particularly Germany and France are wronged in citation-based rankings. Scientometrics, 88, 495–498. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0382-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vermunt, J. K. (1997). Log-linear models for event histories. Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. von Eye, A., & Bergman, L. R. (2003). Research strategies in developmental psychopathology: Dimensional identity and the person-oriented approach. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 553–580.Google Scholar
  36. von Eye, A., & Brandtstädter, J. (1982). Systematization of results of configuration frequency analysis by minimizing Boolean functions. In H. Caussinus, P. Ettinger, & J. R. Mathieu (Eds.), COMPSTAT 1982, part II: Short communications, summaries of posters (pp. 91–92). Wien: Physica.Google Scholar
  37. von Eye, A., & Gutiérrez Peña, E. (2004). Configural frequency analysis: The search for extreme cells. Journal of Applied Statistics, 31, 981–997. doi: 10.1080/0266476042000270545.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von Eye, A., & Mun, E. Y. (2012). Log-linear modeling—Concepts, interpretation, and applications with SYSTAT, Lem, and R. New York: Wiley. (in press).Google Scholar
  39. von Eye, A., Mair, P., & Bogat, G. A. (2005). Prediction models for configural frequency analysis. Psychology Science, 47, 342–355.Google Scholar
  40. von Eye, A., Mair, P., & Mun, E.-Y. (2010). Advances in configural frequency analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. von Tunzelmann, N., Ranga, M., Martin, B., & Geuna, A. (2003). The effects of size on research performance: A SPRU Review. Retrieved December 13, 2011, from
  42. Wolszczak-Derlacz, J., & Parteka, A. (2011). Efficiency of European public higher education institutions: a two-stage multicountry approach. Scientometrics, 89, 887–917. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0484-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans P. W. Bauer
    • 1
  • Gabriel Schui
    • 1
  • Alexander von Eye
    • 2
  • Günter Krampen
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz-Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID)University of TrierTrierGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations