Fair & Balanced wrote:

---

Using that technique, Doty has about 870 cites  That would make him the CoB leader by a wide margin.  Here's a cut & paste from the first page...

---

That is interesting, F&B. Could Doty be the one who is pushing for citations to be a major part of research evaluations?

The information on usmpride.com taken from Doty's vita suggests that he has fewer than 10 (Perhaps 6? I don't recall the exact number.) published articles between 1990 and 2000. I recall that the vita he sent to South Florida did have aricles, presentations, working papers, and other activity lumped together in one category, which was difficult to read and slightly misleading in presentation. Could he be the one who is pushing for citations as a ploy to offset his anemic quantity?

oldCBAer disagreed with ranking DePree first in research, because he [DePree] had only four or five articles between 2000 and the present. Would it be OK to rank DePree as the best scholar in the CoB if he had four or five articles and 800+ citations?

Finally, it seems to me that Doty's publications are becoming a bit dated. It's been a decade since he had a real A publication (Journal of Business Research isn't on the true A-list at most quality institutions I've seen). Looks like Doty's literature presence is slipping to appalling levels.

On a serious note, I'd like to once again voice the problems I have with citation analysis. First, self-cites must be removed. Second, only citations in academic journals, high-quality applied (practical) journals, or scholarly books should be counted. Third, citations are biased in favor of those who used to do good research but who haven't produced in a while (see example above). Fourth, the nature of the citation matters -- if someone contradicts your work and exposes it as spurious, does that make you a good scholar?

I do not believe that the current CoB regime is mature enough to apply any standard fairly, much less a standard that requires as much work as citation analysis does.