Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T20:47:14.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How Industrial-Organizational Psychology Can Benefit From Scientometrics (and Vice Versa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Cornelius J. König*
Fachrichtung Psychologie, Universität des Saarlandes
Nida ul Habib Bajwa
Fachrichtung Psychologie, Universität des Saarlandes
Gabriel Schui
Leibniz-Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation
Clemens B. Fell
Katholische Erwachsenenbildung im Kreis Saarlouis e. V.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cornelius König, Fachrichtung Psychologie, Universität des Saarlandes, Campus A 1 3, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany. E-mail:


Scientific fields benefit when their researchers engage in self-reflection. Accordingly, we welcome the evidence gathered by Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) on gender differences in our field, the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. In this commentary, we argue that such self-reflection processes can be further enhanced by taking advantage of the wealth and breadth of scientometrics, the quantitative study of science.

Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

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.)


Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2018). The effects of gender, age and academic rank on research diversification. Scientometrics, 114, 373387. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2529-1Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., Ye, A. Y., & Ye, F. Y. (2018). Identifying “hot papers” and papers with “delayed recognition” in large-scale datasets by using dynamically normalized citation impact scores. Scientometrics, 116, 655672. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2772-0Google Scholar
Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2 (2), 140. doi: 10.1515/jdis-2017-0006Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429456. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429Google Scholar
Fell, C. B., & König, C. J. (2016). Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists. Scientometrics, 108, 113141. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1967-5Google Scholar
Gardner, D. M., Ryan, A. M., & Snoeyink, M. (2018). How are we doing? An examination of gender representation in I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (3), 369–388.Google Scholar
Gipp, B., & Beel, J. (2009). Citation proximity analysis (CPA): A new approach for identifying related work based on co-citation analysis. In Larsen, B. & Leta, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 571575). Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.Google Scholar
König, C. J., & Bajwa, N. u. H. (2018). How international is research in industrial/organizational psychology? A large empirical investigation. Paper submitted for publication.Google Scholar
König, C. J., Fell, C. B., Kellnhofer, L., & Schui, G. (2015). Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology? Scientometrics, 105, 19311952. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1646-yGoogle Scholar
Krampen, G. (2016). Scientometric trend analyses of publications on the history of psychology: Is psychology becoming an unhistorical science? Scientometrics, 106, 12171238. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1834-4Google Scholar
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211213. doi: 10.1038/504211aGoogle Scholar
Ni, P., & An, X. (2018). Relationship between international collaboration papers and their citations from an economic perspective. Scientometrics, 116, 863877. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2784-9Google Scholar
Ortega, J. L. (2017). Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons. Scientometrics, 112, 947962. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2399-6Google Scholar
Poon, W. C., & Leeves, G. D. (2017). Is there gender gap unequivocally? Evidence from research output 1958–2008. Scientometrics, 111, 16871701. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2327-9Google Scholar
Qiu, J., Zhao, R., Yang, S., & Dong, K. (2017). Informetrics: Theory, methods and applications. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Roberson, Q., Ryan, A. M., & Ragins, B. R. (2017). The evolution and future of diversity at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 483499. doi: 10.1037/apl0000161Google Scholar
Sandnes, F. E. (2018). Do Norwegian academics who publish more earn higher salaries? Scientometrics, 115, 263281. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2639-4Google Scholar
Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35, 15421571. doi: 10.1177/0149206309350082Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. (2016). Web indicators for research evaluation: A practical guide. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar