The aim of the study was to explore the impact of peer-reviewed psychology journals on Wikipedia articles. We are presenting a rank of academic journals classified as pertaining to psychology, most cited on Wikipedia, as well as a rank of general-themed academic journals that were most frequently referenced in Wikipedia entries related to psychology. We then compare the list to journals that are considered most prestigious according to the SciMago journal rank score. Additionally, we describe the time trajectories of the knowledge transfer from the moment of the publication of an article to its citation in Wikipedia. We propose that the citation rate on Wikipedia, next to the traditional citation index, may be a good indicator of the work’s impact in the field of psychology.
AdairJ. G.VohraN. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations. Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. The American Psychologist, 58 (1), 15–23.
2.
AibarE.Lladós-MasllorensJ.Meseguer-ArtolaA.MinguillónJ.LergaM. (2015). Wikipedia at university: What faculty think and do about it. The Electronic Library, 33 (4), 668–683.
3.
AledoJ. A.GámezJ. A.MolinaD.RoseteA. (2018). Consensus-based journal rankings: A complementary tool for bibliometric evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(7), 936–948.
4.
AminM.MabeM. (2000). Impact factors: Use and abuse. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 1(1), 1–6.
5.
AnseelF.DuyckW.De BaeneW.BrysbaertM. (2004). Journal impact factors and self-citations: Implications for psychology journals. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 49–51.
6.
ArchambaultÉ.LarivièreV. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79(3), 635–649.
7.
BallP. (2002). Paper trail reveals references go unread by citing authors. Nature, 420 (6916), 594.
BeckD. M. (2010). The appeal of the brain in the popular press. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 5(6), 762–766.
10.
BenklerY.ShawA.HillB. M. (2015). Peer production: A form of collective intelligence. In MaloneT. (Ed.), Handbook of Collective Intelligence. MIT Press.
11.
BokD. (2009). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press.
12.
BollenJ.Van de SompelH.HagbergA.ChuteR. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4(6), e6022.
13.
BoorM. (1982). The citation impact factor: Another dubious index of journal quality. The American Psychologist, 37(8), 975.
BrembsB.ButtonK.MunafòM. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. In Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (Vol. 7). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
16.
BrownA. R. (2011). Wikipedia as a data source for political scientists: Accuracy and completeness of coverage. Political Science & Politics, 44(02), 339–343.
Christensen-SzalanskiJ. J. J.BeachL. R. (1984). The citation bias: Fad and fashion in the judgment and decision literature. The American Psychologist, 39(1), 75–78.
22.
DavidsonE. J. (2019). A reflection on “Information systems research: Thinking outside the basket and beyond the journal.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 45(1), 11.
23.
DemirS. B. (2018). Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1296–1311.
24.
De RosaE. (2017). Will analytics suppress a diversity of ideas in psychological science?Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 12(6), 1138–1140.
25.
EacottS. (2018). Fluctuations in value: The shifting worth of journal articles in educational administration. Critical Studies in Education, 59(2), 187–203.
26.
FehrL. A.StampsL. E.McMahonP. M. (1981). Journal evaluations: Are they really evaluations of authors?The American Psychologist, 36(11), 1456–1457.
27.
FeingoldA. (1989). Assessment of journals in social science psychology. The American Psychologist, 44(6), 961–964.
28.
Ferrer-SapenaA.Sánchez-PérezE. A.PesetF.GonzálezL.-M.Aleixandre-BenaventR. (2016). The impact factor as a measuring tool of the prestige of the journals in research assessment in mathematics. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 306–314.
29.
FisterI.FisterI.PercM. (2016). Toward the discovery of citation cartels in citation networks. Frontiers of Physics, 4(49). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2016.00049
30.
GilesJ. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900–901.
31.
HegartyP.WaltonZ. (2012). The consequences of predicting scientific impact in psychology using journal impact factors. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 7(1), 72–78.
32.
HumphreyC.KiselevaO.SchleicherT. (2019). A time-series analysis of the scale of coercive journal self-citation and its effect on impact factors and journal rankings. European Accounting Review, 28(2), 335–369.
33.
JamesR. (2016). WikiProject Medicine: Creating credibility in consumer health. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 16(4), 344–351.
34.
JemielniakD. (2014). Common knowledge? An ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford University Press.
35.
JemielniakD. (2016). Wikimedia movement governance: The limits of a-hierarchical organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(3), 361–378.
36.
JemielniakD.AibarE. (2016). Bridging the gap between Wikipedia and Academia. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), 1773–1776.
37.
JemielniakD.GreenwoodD. J. (2015). Wake up or perish: Neo-Liberalism, the social sciences, and salvaging the public university. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies, 15(1), 72–82.
38.
JemielniakD.MasukumeG.WilamowskiM. (2019). The most influential medical journals according to Wikipedia: Quantitative analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(1), e11429.
39.
JemielniakD.WilamowskiM. (2017). Cultural diversity of quality of information on Wikipedias. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(10), 2460–2470.
40.
KaslowN. J. (2015). Translating psychological science to the public. The American Psychologist, 70(5), 361–371.
41.
KoniecznyP. (2016). Teaching with Wikipedia in a 21st-century classroom: Perceptions of Wikipedia and its educational benefits. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), 1523–1534.
42.
KoniecznyP. (2017). Decision making in the self-evolved collegiate court: Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee and its implications for self-governance and judiciary in cyberspace. International Sociology: Journal of the International Sociological Association, 32(6), 755–774.
43.
KoulackD.KeselmanH. J. (1975). Ratings of psychology journals by members of the American Psychological Association. The American Psychologist, 30(11), 1049–1054.
44.
KulczyckiE. (2019). Field patterns of scientometric indicators use for presenting research portfolio for assessment. Research Evaluation, 28(2), 169–181.
45.
LeydesdorffL.OpthofT. (2010). Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. American Society for Information Science, 61(11), 2365–2369.
46.
LondonD. A.AndelmanS. M.ChristianoA. V.KimJ. H.HausmanM. R.KimJ. M. (2019). Is Wikipedia a complete and accurate source for musculoskeletal anatomy?Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy: SRA. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02280-1
47.
MacdonaldS.KamJ. (2007). Aardvark et al.: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 33(6), 702–717.
48.
Martin-SardesaiA.IrvineH.TooleyS.GuthrieJ. (2017). Government research evaluations and academic freedom: A UK and Australian comparison. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 372–385.
49.
MayorJ. (2010). Are scientists nearsighted gamblers? The misleading nature of impact factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 1 (215). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00215
50.
McPhetresJ. (2019). A perspective on the relevance and public reception of psychological science. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.223
51.
MesgariM.OkoliC.MehdiM.NielsenF. Å.LanamäkiA. (2015). “The sum of all human knowledge”: A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 219–245.
52.
MichelucciP.DickinsonJ. L. (2016). The power of crowds. Science, 351(6268), 32–33.
53.
MoustafaK. (2015). The disaster of the impact factor. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 139–142.
54.
MoustafaK. (2016). Aberration of the citation. Accountability in Research, 23(4), 230–244.
55.
NeffM. W. (2018). Publication incentives undermine the utility of science: Ecological research in Mexico. Science & Public Policy, 45(2), 191–201.
56.
NiedererS.van DijckJ. (2010). Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a sociotechnical system. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1368–1387.
57.
NkomoS. M. (2009). The seductive power of academic journal rankings: Challenges of searching for the otherwise. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 106–121.
58.
OeberstA.von der BeckI.D BackM.CressU.NestlerS. (2018). Biases in the production and reception of collective knowledge: The case of hindsight bias in Wikipedia. Psychological Research, 82(5), 1010–1026.
59.
OkumusF.ZhaoX. R.Van NiekerkM.LawR. (2018). The importance of having a balanced rating index for ranking academic journals. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(7), 1170–1181.
60.
OsterlohM.FreyB. S. (2015). Ranking games. Evaluation Review, 39(1), 102–129.
61.
OverR. (1978). Journal ranking by citation analysis: Some inconsistencies. The American Psychologist, 33(8), 778–780.
62.
ÖzbilginM. F. (2009). From journal rankings to making sense of the world. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 113–121.
63.
PaganiR. N.KovaleskiJ. L.ResendeL. M. (2015). Methodi Ordinatio: A proposed methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and year of publication. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2109–2135.
64.
PapakostidisC.GiannoudisP. V. (2018). Impact factor and altmetrics: What is the Future? In MauffreyC.ScarlatM. M. (Eds.), Medical writing and research methodology for the orthopaedic surgeon (pp. 71–79). Springer.
PerezO.Bar-IlanJ.CohenR.SchreiberN. (2019). The network of law reviews: Citation cartels, scientific communities, and journal rankings. The Modern Law Review, 82(2), 240–268.
67.
RafolsI.LeydesdorffL.O’HareA.NightingaleP.StirlingA. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.
68.
ReagleJ. M. (2010). Good faith collaboration: The culture of Wikipedia. MIT Press.
69.
ReavleyN. J.MackinnonA. J.MorganA. J.Alvarez-JimenezM.HetrickS. E.KillackeyE.NelsonB.PurcellR.YapM.JormA. F. (2012). Quality of information sources about mental disorders: A comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources. Psychological Medicine, 48(8), 1753–1762.
70.
RushforthA.de RijckeS. (2015). Accounting for impact? The journal impact factor and the making of biomedical research in the Netherlands. Minerva, 53(2), 117–139.
71.
RushtonJ. P.RoedigerH. L. (1978). An evaluation of 80 psychology journals based on the science citation index. The American Psychologist, 33(5), 520.
72.
SchweitzerN. J. (2008). Wikipedia and psychology: Coverage of concepts and its use by undergraduate students. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2), 81–85.
73.
SeglenP. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.
74.
Shane-SimpsonC.CheE.BrooksP. J. (2016). Giving psychology away: Implementation of Wikipedia editing in an introductory human development course. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(3), 268–293.
StampsL. E.FehrL. A. (1980). Journal ratings revisited: A closer scrutiny of impact factors. The American Psychologist, 35(11), 1048–1049.
77.
StrathernM. (1997). “Improving ratings”: Audit in the British university system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321.
78.
StroebeW.StrackF. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71.
79.
SurowieckiJ. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Anchor Books.
80.
TadajewskiM. (2016). Academic labour, journal ranking lists and the politics of knowledge production in marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(1-2), 1–18.
81.
TeplitskiyM.LuG.DuedeE. (2017). Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 2116–2127.
82.
UhlmannE. L.EbersoleC. R.ChartierC. R.ErringtonT. M.KidwellM. C.LaiC. K.McCarthyR. J.RiegelmanA.SilberzahnR.NosekB. A. (2019). Scientific Utopia III: Crowdsourcing science. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619850561
83.
VanclayJ. K. (2012). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?Scientometrics, 92(2), 211–238.
84.
VoglS.ScherndlT.KühbergerA. (2018). #Psychology: A bibliometric analysis of psychological literature in the online media. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1253–1269.
85.
WhiteM. J.WhiteK. G. (1977). Citation analysis of psychology journals. The American Psychologist, 32(5), 301.
86.
Wikipedia. (2019). Wikipedia: Size comparisons. In Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. https://perma.cc/K4BT-QJYD
