Dissecting a Scholar Popularity Ranking into Different Knowledge Areas

  • Gabriel Pacheco
  • Pablo FigueiraEmail author
  • Jussara M. Almeida
  • Marcos A. Gonçalves
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9819)


In this paper, we analyze a ranking of the most “popular” scholars working in Brazilian institutions. The ranking was built by first sorting scholars according to their h-index (based on Google scholar) and then by their total citation count. In our study, we correlate the positions of these top scholars with various academic features such as number of publications, years after doctorate, number of supervised students, as well as other popularity metrics. Moreover, we separate scholars by knowledge area so as to assess how each area is represented in the ranking as well as the importance of the academic features on ranking position across different areas. Our analyses help to dissect the ranking into each area, uncovering similarities and differences as to the relative importance of each feature to scholar popularity as well as the correlations between popularity metrics across knowledge areas.


Citation analysis Scholar popularity Academic features 



This work was partially funded by projects InWeb (grant MCT/CNPq 573871/2008- 6) and MASWeb (grant FAPEMIG/PRONEX APQ-01400-14), and by the authors’ individual grants from CNPq, CAPES and FAPEMIG.


  1. 1.
    Abramo, G., Cicero, T., D’Angelo, C.A.: Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? J. Informetr. 8(1), 89–97 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acuna, D.E., Allesina, S., Kording, K.P.: Future impact: predicting scientific success. Nature 489(7415), 201–202 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aguillo, I.F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., Priego, J.L.O.: Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics 85(1), 243–256 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bollen, J., Rodriquez, M.A., de Sompel, H.V.: Journal status. Scientometrics 69(2), 669–687 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakraborty, T., Kumar, S., Goyal, P., Ganguly, N., Mukherjee, A.: Towards a stratified learning approach to predict future citation counts. In: JCDL (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cronin, B., Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. JASIST 57(9), 1275–1278 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ding, Y., Cronin, B.: Popular and/or prestigious? measures of scholarly esteem. IP&M 47(1), 80–96 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorogovtsev, S., Mendes, J.: Ranking scientists. CoRR, abs/1511.01545 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Figueira, P., Pacheco, G., Almeida, J.M., Gonçalves, M.A.: On the impact ofacademic factors on scholar popularity: a cross-area study. In: Kapidakis, S., Mazurek, C., Werla, M. (eds.) TPDL 2015. LNCS, vol. 9316, pp. 139–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonçalves, G., Figueiredo, F., Almeida, J.M., Gonçalves, M.A.: Characterizingscholar popularity: a case study in the computer science research community. In: JCDL (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leydesdorff, L.: How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? JASIST 60(7), 1327–1336 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllon, J.M., Martín-Martín, A., López-Cózar, E.D.: Methods for estimating the size of google scholar. Scientometrics 104(3), 931–949 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Pacheco
    • 1
  • Pablo Figueira
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jussara M. Almeida
    • 1
  • Marcos A. Gonçalves
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations