Not all the applied linguists in my database had set up such a profile, so
another program was needed to assess the h-indices. For this Harzing’s
Publish or Perish (PoP) was used. Harzing (2011) is the handbook that goes
with the program and that discusses the many types of indicators available
with their pros and cons in detail.
Table 9.2 presents the outcomes of Batia Laufer’s citation pattern according
to PoP.
PoP produces a large number of indicators, including the total number of
papers, total number of citations, average number of citations per year, per
paper, per author, papers per author, author per paper and variants of the
h-index. While all of these indicators may be useful, the focus will be on the h-
index. The profiles in GS seem to be quite accurate in listing the publications
of a given author, but extracting the indicators in PoP is often more work
and is sometimes impossible. While Jim Lantolf and Kathleen Bardovi-
Harlig have more or less unique names, and therefore their names as search
terms lead to few false hits, other people, like Andrew Cohen and Karen
Johnson, are less fortunate in this respect. There are many Cohens and
Johnsons active in academia and the search options for selecting authors on
the basis offirst names are limited. Searches with such names lead to thou-
sands (actually, GS limits the number to 1000) of citations and it is in fact
impossible to select only the citations we are interested in. For less common
Table 9.1Batia Laufer’s citation indices from Google Scholar
All Since 2009Citations 8634 4922
h-index 42 35
i10-index 69 59
Figure 9.1Laufer (2003) citations over time
Table 9.2Output of PoP for Batia Laufer
Papers: 114 Papers/author: 83.60 h-index: 42 Query date: 2014-02-21
Papers: 114
Citations: 8662
Citations: 8662 Cites/year: 227.95 g.index: 93
Years: 38 Cites/auth/year: 167.63 hc-index: 24
Cites/paper: 75.98 hI,annual: 1.05 hI,norm: 40 Years: 38
Cites/year: 227.95
The citation game 109115219911996 2002 2008 20140