I just posted the newest citation numbers at: http://scholarmetrics.com/ I’m asking program chairs to review the faculty rosters before I post anything else about the results. If you spot something that needs to be changed, please let me know at: tom.sanchez@vt.edu.
This group is for news, announcements, jobs, internships, classes, and resources related to planning analytics. Urban Affairs and Planning is proposing a 12-credit certificate in Planning Analytics which will then convert to a 30-credit masters degree. Please join the discussion.
*** Update 4/10/2020 ***
Thanks to Alasdair Rae for providing updated faculty roster information for the University of Sheffield. I managed to miss several of their faculty and have added them to the table below.
************
I recently collected Google Scholar Citation Profile data for UK and Ireland planning faculty to make comparisons with U.S. and Canada planning faculty. As it turns out, of approximately 600 faculty from 22 schools (schools listed by the Royal Town Planning Institute), only around 40 UK faculty (6.7%) have GS profiles (compared to nearly 60% for U.S./Canada faculty). Due to the lack of comparable data I decided to only list what I could find, without analysis or comparison.
| School/Faculty | Citations | H-Index |
|---|---|---|
| Anglia Ruskin University | ||
| NA | ||
| Birmingham City University | ||
| David Higgins | 265 | 12 |
| Cardiff University | ||
| Andrew Flynn | 3,967 | 27 |
| Brian Webb | 175 | 9 |
| Neil Harris | 691 | 14 |
| Andrew Williams | 593 | 11 |
| Richard Gale | 2,863 | 16 |
| Robert Huggins | 7,022 | 44 |
| Roberta Sonnino | 4,423 | 30 |
| Dublin Institute of Technology | ||
| NA | ||
| Heriot-Watt University | ||
| Peter McCallum | 232 | 4 |
| David Paul Jenkins | 2,153 | 24 |
| Sarah R Payne | 626 | 12 |
| Leeds Beckett University | ||
| NA | ||
| London South Bank University | ||
| NA | ||
| Newcastle University | ||
| Andrew Law | 156 | 6 |
| Carlos Calderon | 371 | 11 |
| Stephen Graham | 23,935 | 62 |
| Oxford Brookes University | ||
| Graham Wood | 490 | 12 |
| Christos Vidalakis | 346 | 9 |
| Plymouth University | ||
| David FL Jenkins | 718 | 16 |
| Queen's University Belfast | ||
| Linda Price | 473 | 11 |
| Philip Boland | 902 | 15 |
| Richard Waldron | 154 | 6 |
| Stephen McKay | 214 | 9 |
| Sheffield Hallam University | ||
| Rebecca Sharpe | 364 | 7 |
| University College Cork | ||
| NA | ||
| University College Dublin | ||
| Mark Scott | 2,124 | 25 |
| Mick Lennon | 627 | 13 |
| Brendan Williams | 807 | 15 |
| University College London | ||
| Andrew Jones | 2,131 | 21 |
| Stephen Marshall | 3,194 | 22 |
| Susan Moore | 477 | 9 |
| Jo Williams | 1,552 | 20 |
| Ben Clifford | 273 | 9 |
| University of Birmingham | ||
| David Adams | 383 | 9 |
| John Round | 2,063 | 25 |
| Peter Lee | 1,121 | 18 |
| University of Liverpool | ||
| Chia-Lin Chen | 445 | 8 |
| University of Manchester | ||
| Nuno Pinto | 225 | 7 |
| Richard Kingston | 2,845 | 20 |
| Mark Baker | 1,321 | 17 |
| University of Reading | ||
| NA | ||
| University of Sheffield | ||
| Philipp Horn | 126 | 6 |
| Sarah Payne | 95 | 7 |
| Stephen Connelly | 1,252 | 14 |
| Tom Goodfellow | 1,082 | 18 |
| Rowland Atkinson | 12,925 | 43 |
| Malcolm Tait | 812 | 15 |
| Paul Meth | 909 | 13 |
| Liz Sharp | 1,050 | 18 |
| Ryan Powell | 1,079 | 19 |
| Alasdair Rae | 721 | 16 |
| University of West England | ||
| William (Billy) Clayton | 203 | 8 |
| Ben Clark | 450 | 11 |
| University of Westminster | ||
| NA |
It would be great to hear from those on the list (or not on the list) if you have corrections and additions. Please contact me at tom.sanchez@vt.edu.
Bruce Stiftel commented, “Seeing this with Program as the unit of analysis is really interesting. It would also be of interest to see a similar analysis with the individual faculty as unit of analysis.” Below is the chart showing individual faculty data. The trajectory during the promotion and tenure period (< 20 years) is quite notable.
He also commented, “What would really be helpful to know are citation rates for a recent time period: say 5, 7 or ten years. And, especially recent citations to recent publications. I realize these numbers are a lot harder to determine, but they reflect the active impact of our colleagues better than aggregations that include citations made many years ago, and citations to research published many years ago.” This is a great idea and I’m planning to include it in my summer update. Stay tuned.
Thanks Bruce.
When I compare citation activity for urban planning faculties (i.e., departments), I usually use the median of total faculty citations. Faculties are generally small and there tends to be an outlier among them. A question that arises is whether more experienced faculties have higher citation levels because they have a larger base of publications which had a longer time to accumulate citations. Of the 120 urban planning programs that I track in North America, the average years of program faculty service is about 19 years and the median number of citations is 593 (ln(593) = 6.38). The cluster of planning programs averaging between 13.5 and 24.5 years of service represents nearly 85% of all programs. As shown on the graph below, there is virtually no change in the trend line for these programs. In other words, age does not appear to be a significant factor. As would be expected the youngest faculties do in fact have fewer citations, but the oldest do not show a marked increase.
Note: The Ohio State University (shown with the red square symbol) is actually one of the younger faculties but has a faculty-wide citation level near the average for all programs.
Your questions and comments are greatly appreciated.
Analyses of faculty citation activity usually focus on counts as a function of author characteristics, such as rank, gender, previous citation levels, and other factors influencing productivity and career path. Citation analyses of publications consider aspects, such as the number of authors, author reputation, author order, length of the title, methodology, and impact factors of the publication. While publication topics or discipline are considered important factors, they are more difficult to analyze, and therefore, occur less frequently. This article attempts to do that for the field of urban planning. Urban planning is multi-disciplinary and includes consideration of social, economic, technological, environmental, and political systems that shape human settlement patterns. It has been suspected that some topics are more “popular” and have larger audiences, therefore, are cited more often. Using nearly 15,000 urban planning publications, this article presents an analysis of topics to assess which are cited most frequently. The classification of publications was performed using a Support Vector Machine (SVM), a machine learning (ML) approach to text classification, using citation data from Google Scholar. The citation levels for the resulting categories are analyzed and discussed.
Keywords: urban planning; bibliometrics; citation analysis
See full text (click to view article).
The 659 urban planning faculty with Google Scholar Citation Profiles (as of 12/8/2019) list 29,398 publications, an average of about 45 publications per faculty member (publications were only counted once even though approximately 2,000 were co-authored with other planning faculty). All publications currently average 44 citations (median of 10) for a total of 1,295,160 citations. The chart below shows the interquartile range (IQR) of citations for these publications by year. For most years the 25th quartile averages about 3 and the 75th quartile averages about 34. The highest two years are for publications in 1997 and 2003 (average of 64). The most highly cited publication among these is Regional Advantage by AnnaLee Saxenian with 13,247.
IQR of Citation Totals for Publications by Year
See also the updated urban planning program citation analysis and searchable database. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated (tom.sanchez@vt.edu).
The table below includes the most recent update of urban planning faculty citation activity. Also see the searchable database at: http://scholarmetrics.com/
Below is the list of faculty (as of May 2019) that were included in my analysis of Twitter use by urban planning faculty. The paper I presented at ACSP today can be downloaded here. I welcome your comments and suggestions.
Out of the approximately 1,100 planning faculty that I track, just over 300 have active Twitter accounts (about 100 users for each rank). Similar to my comparison of Google Scholar users and non-users (see: http://tomwsanchez.com/the-google-scholar-citation-profile-advantage/), I was interested in whether citation activity differs between Twitter users and non-users. Below are some initial results from this research which show there are differences between the two groups, with Twitter users having higher numbers of total citations as well as H-Indices.
Your comments are appreciated.
