bibliometry of personality psychology r2 6-01-2012

7/28/2019 Bibliometry of Personality Psychology R2 6-01-2012

1/30

Personality psychology in the first decade of the new millenium:

A bibliometric portrait

Jri Allik

Department of Psychology

University of Tartu

Estonian Academy of Sciences

Keywords: personality psychology; bibliometric indicators; journal impact factors; highly

cited papers; country performance; country self-citation bias

Address correspondence to:

Jri Allik

Department of Psychology

University of Tartu

Tiigi 78, Tartu 50410

E-mail:[email protected]


2/30

European Journal of Personality (2012), in press

2

Abstract

Nine principal personality psychology journals Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology (JPSP),Journal of Personality (JP),Journal of Research in Personality (JRP),

European Journal of Personality (EJP), Personality and Individual Differences (PAID),

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSPB), Personality and Social Psychology

Review (PSPR),Journal of Personality Assessment(JPA), andJournal of Personality

Disorders (JPD) have published 8,510 research papers during the period from 2001 to 2010.

These papers have been cited 149,108 times (September 2011) by papers published in

journals indexed in the Web of Science. Although personality psychologists from the US

published the largest number of papers (4,924, 57.9%), and had the largest number of

citations (101,875, 68.3%), their relative contribution to personality literature has slightly

diminished during the first decade of the new millennium. Unlike other countries, personality

psychologists residing in the US demonstrated a strong country self-citation bias: they were

about 14% more likely to cite papers which were written by their compatriots rather than non-

US authors in three leading journals JPSP, PSPB, and PSPR. The intensity and pattern of

citations indicate that personality psychology indeed occupies one of the core positions at the

heart of psychological knowledge.


3/30


3

Personality psychology in the first decade of the new millennium:

A bibliometric portrait

A bibliometric analysis may be entertaining but it also could serve for more constructive

purposes. Science administrators, for instance, can use results of a bibliometric analysis for

making more educated managerial decisions, journal editors can promote new policies, and

scientists can elaborate strategies for making their research findings available for the best

possible audience.

Personality psychologists have a long tradition of believing that their field forms a core of

psychology (Allport, 1961). A bibliometric analysis seems to support this suggestion since an

examination of journal citation data collected from 17 APA journals over 40 years revealed

that personality and social psychology is indeed by their citation networks located at the heart

of psychological knowledge (Yang & Chiu, 2009). This position may have served as a

justification for personality and social psychologists who have been rather active to observe

publication trends in their own field. For example, a bibliometric analysis of the first 36 years

(1965-2000) of the most cited psychology journal,Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology (JPSP), showed that papers published in this journal have grown over the years

both in length and the number of co-authors (Quiones-Vidal, Lopez-Garca, Pearada-

Ortega, & Tortosa-Gil, 2004). They also found that the papers published in JPSP have become

more international with an increasing proportion of authors from outside the United States

(Quiones-Vidal et al., 2004). Also, an analysis of the articles published in Personality and

Individual Differences (PAID) demonstrated that their authorship has become culturally more

diverse. Yet, unlike for JPSP papers published in PAID have become shorter over the period

from 1993 to 2005 (Bedford, 2007). Mallon and Kingsley (1998) analysed the papers

published inJournal of Personality (JP) from 1970 to 1995 and confirmed a well-known

secret that a typical personality analysis uses questionnaire measures and undergraduate


4/30


4

participants. Finally, in a recent paper Kashy with colleagues (2009) documented how authors

of the papers published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSPB) were reporting

or misreporting their analyses and results.

Unfortunately, most of these bibliometric analyses are limited to few journals and/or

relatively short periods of publication. For example, Haslam with colleagues (2008) examined

citations of 308 papers which were published in 1996 in three primary social-personality

journals: JPSP, PSPB, andJournal of Experimental Social Psychology. Later, they studied the

citation impact of 1,580 articles from 37 journals that were all published during only one

year1998and concluded that the articles with greater length, more references and authors,

and especially with United States (US), Canadian or United Kingdom (UK) origin had a

significant citation advantage (Haslam & Koval, 2010).

The main aim of this paper was to follow bibliometric trends in a comprehensive set of

personality journals during the first decade of the new millennium. With this purpose it is

necessary to identify a set of core personality journals and observe their bibliometric records

(number of papers and their citations) for the most productive countries during the last ten

years. Obviously, the largest problem was how to surpass ambiguity in the use of the term

personality. For example, a search in the Web of Science (WoS; Thomson Reuters) database

(September 23, 2011) covering the period from 2001 to 2010 retrieved 42,362 publications

which contained the search term personality in the title, abstract, or keywords. Many of

these papers were evidently not related to psychology as such, speaking, for instance, about

magnificent personality of musicians or other creative individuals. On the other hand, a

paper can describe a genuine personality concept such as self-esteem or procrastination

without explicitly using personality as an explanatory category. For example, from 11,428

papers containing self-esteem in the title, abstract, or keywords only 1,494 (13.1%) also

mentioned personality. Thus, the best solution appeared to be identifying a set of principal


5/30


5

journals specialised for publishing results of personality psychology. As a rule, these journals

also mention personality in the their title.

Methods

Analysing all papers published in the journals indexed by the WoSin the period from 2001 to

2010 it was possible to identify 9 principal personality psychology journals that contributed

the largest number of papers containing the search term personality in their title, abstract or

keywords:Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology (JPSP),Journal of Personality (JP),

Journal of Research in Personality (JRP),European Journal of Personality (EJP),

Personality and Individual Differences (PAID), Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

(PSPB), Personality and Social Psychology Review (PSPR),Journal of Personality

Asseessment(JPA),Journal of Personality Disorders (JPD). There were also several

psychiatry journals (e.g.Biological Psychiatry, Psychiatry Research etc.) publishing a

considerable number of personality papers. Also some general psychology journals (e.g.,

Psychological Reports,Journal of Applied Psychology etc.) are open to contributions from

personality psychologists but personality is not the main subject of these journals. However,

there are some specialised journals which were nevertheless left out from the further analysis.

For example, the Social Psychological and Personality Science (Sage Publisher) was

established only in 2010 and it is not yet indexed in the WoS. TheJournal of Individual

Differences (Hogrefe Publishing) changed its name in 2005 (formerlyZeitschrift fr

Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie) and has been indexed in the WoSfor the last

three years only. On the other hand, the Social Behavior and Personality (Society for

Personality Research Inc) was founded in 1973 and it has been regularly indexed in the WoS.

However, its impact over more than 30 years (from 1980-2010) has been as small as 3.25 (the

habitual two-year impact factor for 2010 was 0.26) which speaks about its rather modest


6/30


6

impression on the field. For these various reasons, the three mentioned journals were excluded

from the further analysis.

In all searches, the items that were classified as editorial materials, corrections, and book

reviews were excluded. The EJP was the greatest loser in terms of the number of published

items, because it publishes every year a special review issue where 1 to 3 target articles are

accompanied by comments and authors responses to these comments which all are classified

as Editorial materials. Four parts of the UK England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland

are indexed separately in the WoS. These four categories were aggregated under the heading

of the UK. Hong Kong, however, is not treated as a separate entity in WoSand is included in

the records of the People Republic of China.

Results

Country-Level Analysis: Who Publishes Most and Who Gets Most Citations?

Twenty five most productive countries producing the largest number of publications in the 9

core journals specialised on personality psychology over the period from 2001 to 2010 were

selected for more detailed analysis. The bibliometric indices of these 25 countries are shown

in Table 1. In total, there were 8,510 research, theoretical or review papers published in these

journals during the period of ten years which have been cited by all journals indexed in the

Web of Science 149,108 times (September 21, 2011). Thus, the average paper in these

journals was cited 17.52 times. Interestingly, from all these papers only 678 (8.0%) have not

received a single citation and 206 (2.4%) has collected 100 or more citations. Countries were

ranked according to their total number of citations across all nine journals. As expected,

personality psychologists from the US published the largest number of papers (4,924, 57.9%),

and had the largest number of citations (101,875, 68.3%). Although the impact (citations per

paper) of the US personality psychologists was not the largest in any of the nine journals, their

average citation per paper ratio of 20.69 across all 9 journals was the highest among the 25


7/30


7

countries. The performance of the Peoples Republic of China depended heavily on

personality psychologists working in Hong Kong. From all Chinese papers, 71.7% were

authored by Hong Kong personality psychologists. Countries producing a small number of

papers may be contingent on only a few actively publishing scholars. For example, from 24

papers published by researchers from the Russian Federation, 14 (58%) were authored by

Gennady Knyazev from Novosibirsk.

For the five most productive countries (US, UK, Canada, Germany, and Netherlands), it was

feasible to analyse their relative productivity on yearly basis during the observed decade.

Only statistically significant trend was the decrease of the US papers relative to the total

number of papers published yearly in the 9 core personality journals (r= .72,p = .018).

Contrary to this, the proportion of papers authored by UK and German authors showed a

slight tendency to increase (r= .62,p = .054and r=.53,p = .111 respectively). Thus,

although the absolute number of the US papers even increased (from 467 in 2001 to 531 in

2010) their proportion to the total number of published papers dropped from 61.9% to 57.9%

during the first decade of the new millennium.

According to theEssential Science Indicators (ESI; Thomson Reuters) database, researchers

from Switzerland, US, and Denmark had the highest number of citations per paper across all

fields of sciences (Allik, 2008). However, in a more narrow research area, such as personality

psychology, for instance, the ranking of countries could be substantially different. For

example, comparing results of this analysis with that of the ESI, personality researchers in

Israel, Germany and France seem to have higher citations per paper rate than their colleagues

from other disciplines in general including some other areas of psychology. Conversely, the

impact of personality research carried out in Switzerland and Finland failed to match

countrys average scientific ranking in other disciplines.


8/30


8

The high rate of citations to US papers is likely due in part to the quality of those papers but it

may also be, partly at least, the result of a country self-citation bias. Three journals JPSP,

PSPB, and PSPR have one of the highest percentages of articles authored by the researchers

residing in the US, 77.8%, 71.2%, and 73.6% respectively. Collectively, US researchers have

published 2,242 (74.9%) out of 2,993 papers published in these 3 journals during the observed

10 years period. These 2,242 papers have been cited in 38,412 papers which appeared in all

journals that are indexed by WoS. On the other hand, there were 760 papers with no US

researchers among authors that were cited by 12,260 other articles.1 The ratio of citing papers

per published papers was very similar for the papers with US (15.0) and non-US (16.1)

authors. It is important to notice, however, that the papers with US authors have a

considerable advantage over papers with non-US authors in the citation-per-paper ratio: the

average paper with US authors was cited 32.4 times while the average paper with non-US

authors was cited only 24.4 times. Thus, the advantage of the US papers comes from the fact

that they are cited more frequently together with other US papers by the same citing article.

For all papers published in JPSP, PSPB, and PSPR during 2001-2010, it was possible to find

the percentage of how much researchers from country X have cited the papers with US and

non-US authors. For example, among the articles that cited the papers with US authors, 60.9%

had also US authors, whereas only 46.7% of the articles citing the non-US authored papers

had US authors. The positive difference of 14.3% can be used as the index of the country self-

citation bias: the degree to which US authors are inclined to cite works done by the

researchers of their own country relative to the work that was done outside of the US. In all

other countries, the index of the self-enhancement was more modest. For example, Canadian

authors cited their own papers 9.0% more frequently than papers that were authored by non-

Canadian authors. However, there was a general tendency to cite non-US papers more

1Please note that due to imperfection of the search engine these two number 2,242 and 760 do not add up to the

total number of papers 2,993.


9/30


9

frequently than US papers among all nations but US. For example, it was 5.0%, 4.5% and

2.2% more likely that Dutch, German and Canadian authors cited papers with non-US authors

more frequently than papers authored by researchers from the US. Thus, this is a clear

evidence of the country self-citation bias which contributes to the US dominance in the

personality psychology: the authors residing in the US are more inclined to cite papers which

were written by the US authors than papers with non-US authors.

It is possible that the country self-citation bias affects social psychologists more than

personality psychologists who are publishing in JPSP, PSPB, and PSPR. To control this

possibility we selected from 2,993 papers published in these 3 journals during the observed 10

years only these papers which explicitly used personality in the title, abstract, or keywords.

There were 705 (23.6%) such papers which were slightly more cited (+3.8 citations per paper)

than an average paper in general. From these 705 personality papers 556 (78.9%) were co-

authored by at least one US author. Since the percentage of US authors who cited US papers

published in JPSP, PSPB, and PSPR was 61.4% and 46.9% among those who cited non-US

papers the country-self-citation bias was 14.5%. Thus, the degree to which US authors are

inclined to cite works done by the researchers of their own country relative to the work that

was done outside of the US was almost identical irrespective to mentioning or not mentioning

personality in the title, abstract or keywords.

The analysis of the first 36 years of JPSP showed a growth of internationalism with an

increasing proportion of authors from outside the US, by 2000 constituting almost one third of

JPSP articles (Quiones-Vidal et al., 2004). However, this trend seems to be reversed during

the last few years. The percentage of the US authors in JPSP reached its highest concentration

(80.9%) in 2010. Among authors of JPSP 42 different countries/territories were represented.2

2

It should be noted that the actual number of countries published in JPSP may be underestimated. Due to the

editorial policy authors of large collaborative projects are hided behind group names. For example,118 co-


10/30


11/30


11

fields of psychological science from 2000 to 2010 (data retrieved from theEssential Science

Indicators, March 1, 2011). This is an indication that personality research has higher intensity

than psychology in general.

Is Personality Psychology Becoming More Visible?

One obvious peculiarity of personality journals published in the US (JPSP, PSPB, and PSPR)

is to combine personality and social psychology. In order to establish proportions between

these two fields, the relative number of personality papers (papers containing personality in

the title, abstract or keywords) in the JPSP, PSPB, and PSPR during the last 10-years period

from 2001 to 2010 was computed. It turned out that on average only 23.6% of all published

papers in these three journals mentioned personality. This percentage demonstrate a slightly

decreasing trend over the last 10 years (r= -.55,p = .100). In contrast, the proportion of

personality-related papers demonstrated a considerable increase in the 7 generalist psychology

journals (Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, Psychological Science, American

Psychologist,Annual Review of Psychology,Review of General Psychology, and Journal of

Applied Psychology): r= .63,p = .051. Thus, personality papers form less than 1/4 of all

papers published in JPSP, PSPB, and PSPR and even this small proportion has slightly

decreased during the last decade.

Which Are the Most Cited Papers in the Field?

Table 2 presents two most cited personality articles published in the 9 core personality

journals for years 2001-2010. The ranking includes only papers which used explicitly

personality either in the title, abstract or keywords (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Costa,

Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Goldberg et al., 2006; Gosling,

Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann,

& Banaji, 2009; Gross & John, 2003; Hopwood & Donnellan, 2010; John & Gross, 2004;


12/30


12

Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002; Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005; McCrae,

Terracciano, & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005; Penke,

Denissen, & Miller, 2007; Reynolds, Ortengren, Richards, & de Wit, 2006; Schmidt & Hunter,

2004; Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008; Vazire, 2010;

Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). From these 20 top-cited articles, 12 (60%) were published in

JPSP, 2 papers in JRP, PSPB and PAID, and 1 paper in JP and EJP. Four authors (James

Gross, Oliver John, Robert McCrae, and Antonio Terracciano) were presented with two

papers in the list of most cited personality papers. Nineteen of the 20 top-cited papers were

authored by researchers from the US and one paper each from Australia, Canada, Estonia,

Germany, Netherlands, and New Zealand. It is not surprising that papers describing new

measurement instruments or methods (Goldberg et al., 2006; Gosling et al., 2003; Greenwald

et al., 2009; Hopwood & Donnellan, 2010) and meta-analyses (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart,

2007; Greenwald et al., 2009; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008) have achieved colleagues attention. It

is also expected that theoretical (Markon et al., 2005; Penke et al., 2007; Whiteside & Lynam,

2001) and cross-cultural (Costa et al., 2001; McCrae, Terracciano, & 78 Members of the

Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005; Schmitt et al., 2008) topics have collected a

sufficiently large number of citations.

Readers of this journal might be interested to learn about highly cited papers published in EJP

during the first decade of the new millennium. Table 3 presents the list of the most cited

articles for each of the years 2001-2010 (Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson, 2004;

Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Penke et al., 2007; Petrides & Furnham, 2001, 2003;

Riemann & Kandler, 2010; Smits & Boeck, 2006; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2008; van der Zee,

Thijs, & Schakel, 2002; Whiteside, Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005).

Where are Personality Papers Cited?


13/30


13

The analysed 8,510 papers were cited in 59,667 papers (note that there were considerably less

citing papers than the number of citations 149,108 meaning that on average each citing paper

cited 2.5 of the analysed papers). It is expected that papers that were published in the 9 core

personality journals are frequently cited by other papers published in the same core

personality journals. However, if personality papers are also cited in psychology journals not

focusing on personalityper se, this will indicate that personality is relevant to psychology in

general (Yang & Chiu, 2009). Table 4 shows the top 35 journals containing the largest

number of papers citing articles of the 9 core personality journals. As expected, the core 9

personality journals (marked by asterisk) frequently cited papers which were published in

these journals. However, among the top rankings, there were many general (Psychological

Science, Psychological Reports, Psychological Inquiry, Psychological Bulletin), social

(Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,European Journal of Social Psychology,British

Journal of Social Psychology), applied (Journal of Applied Psychology,Journal of Applied

Social Psychology,Basic and Applied Social Psychology), clinical (Behaviour Research and

Therapy,Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,Journal of Abnormal Psychology),

cognitive (Cognition and Emotion, Social Cognition), and affective (Emotion,Motivation and

Emotion) psychology journals. It is also remarkable that organizational (Advances in

Consumer Research,Journal of Consumer Research) and cross-cultural (Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology) psychology pay attention to what is going on in the core personality

journals.


14/30


14

Discussion

According to bibliometric indicators, personality psychology is one of many expanding areas

among various disciplines of psychology (Krampen, von Eye, & Schui, 2011). This expansion

is not very surprising, considering the evidence that shows personality psychology is

apparently occupying one of the central positions in psychological knowledge. Indeed, it

seems to be nowadays impossible to devise any sufficiently complete explanation of

emotional or rational behaviour without involving the concept of personality. Since

personality psychology has been rather persuasive in demonstration consequential outcomes

of personality (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006), it is logical that publications in personality

psychology journals have been extensively cited not only by general theoretical journals but

also in many applied journals devoted to either clinical, organizational or social issues.

Although claims have often been made about the central position of personality in

psychological knowledge, it was surprising to see how uneven is the geographical distribution

of personality research. France and Japan seem to have productivity and impact in that are

very low in personality psychology relative to science overall. Some countries with very

strong research traditions in psychology (for example Switzerland and Finland) provide

relatively modest input to the core personality journals. Policy makers and science

administrators in many countries should be concerned by the discovery that their countries

failed to reach even the top 25 list of productivity while several small countries such as

Estonia and Singapore have succeeded. However, there was another type of countries, such as

Spain and Israel, whose scientific strength is concentrated on psychology in general and

personality psychology in particular (cf. Allik, 2008).

Unlike many fields of psychology, personality research has been a truly international

enterprise for many decades. A recent highly publicized article inBehavioral and Brain

Sciences,Nature and Science re-iterated the well-known fact that in the top psychological


15/30


15

journals 96% of all research participants were from Western industrialized countries (Henrich,

Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010a, 2010b; Jones, 2010). It is clear that personality research which

is rooted predominantly in Western culturesometime called WASP (Western Academic

Scientific Psychology)cannot pretend to have automatically relevance to the majority of the

world (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002), reflecting only a small minority of WEIRD

(Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) people (Henrich et al., 2010a).

Even though personality psychology has been relatively successful in avoiding studying

exclusively weird people, a desired level of international cooperation is still out of reach.

One alarming sign is that the most influential personality journals which are the official

heralds for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology andAPA are growing less

international.

Extrapolating the trends that had been observable during the preceding period, it was

concluded a few years ago that half of all authors publishing in JPSP would be outside of the

US rather soon (Quiones-Vidal et al., 2004). These prophesy was obviously wrong since, by

2010, the domination of authors from the US in such journals as JPSP, PSPB, PSPR, and JP is

not decreasing but increasing. This is opposite to the general trend which shows an increase in

the proportion of the papers with non-US authors. It seems that personality journals edited by

the US institutions have become, opposite to their own intentions, more self-centred and less

opened to an international co-operation.

There are obviously many mechanisms by which the US domination in the leading personality

journals has been maintained. The most obvious cause is the outstanding quality of the US

authors and the type of research they are publishing in the peer-reviewed journals. There are,

however, some supplementary mechanisms which could enhance the US domination in

personality research. One of these mechanisms is the country self-citation bias which is

typical to many countries but is most prominent among the US personality journals. There


16/30


16

seems to be a pervasive tendency that researchers who are residing in the US are more likely

to cite an article when it was authored by the US rather than non-US authors. However, the

US self-citation bias is not specific to personality psychology alone. There are few countries

such as USA, China and Iran which show exceptionally high country self-citation rates in all

fields of science (Jaffe, 2011).

What is behind the elevated level of the US self-citation bias? There are probably many

factors influencing the country self-citation bias including large populations, large total

number of publications and language barriers (Jaffe, 2011). One additional possibility is that

that the country self-citation bias may be a group-level manifestation of self-enhancement

biases that normally operate at an individual level: scientists in one country have a tendency

to emphasize or exaggerate qualities of the scientific work done in their country relative to

other countries. Since greater self-enhancement has been found in societies with more income

inequality (Loughnan et al., 2011) it may be more likely that the US scientists are inclined to

believe in a superior quality of science done in their country. As a consequence, authors who

are affiliated with one of the US institutions are more likely than non-US researchers to cite

many US papers in the same article. In the result there were 2.5 times more citations than

citing articles. After removing these two biases the US self-citation bias and serial citations

there was no substantial difference in the number of citing articles: both the US and the non-

US papers in the three leading personality journals JPSP, PSPB, and PSPR were recognized

by approximately the same number of citing articles. Thus, if the number of citing papers, not

the number of total citations in these papers, is a measure of quality of scientific papers there

was no superiority of the US papers over non-US papers.

However, it is possible that the US self-citation bias has a more mundane explanation.

Another possibility, suggested by one of the reviewers, is that the US authors working in a

field of personality psychology are more than their colleagues from other countries involved


17/30


17

in a small-world collaborative network (Watts & Strogatz, 1998). When it comes to a decision

to cite or not to cite a previously published paper a preference is given to another member of

an invisible college whose research questions, used methods and proposed theories are more

comprehensible to the citing authors. Not only infectious diseases spread more easily in

small-world networks but also practices of mutual citation.

Limitations of the Current Study

There are several obvious limitations of these analyses. One of them is a principal difference

between American and European personality journals. The North American tradition

combines social and personality psychology which opposes European tradition to emphasize

individual differences. For example, EJP is published separately from theEuropean Journal

of Social Psychology. Described bibliometric regularities may characterize social psychology

more than personality psychology and vice versa. It was recently observed that differences

between personality and social psychologists may be more fundamental than it was thought

before. Like physicists personality psychologists seem to gravitate towards simplicity in

which pursuit they try to reduce all individual differences to a small set of basic principles. By

contrast, social psychologists are more like to chemists who are fascinated by an almost

endless richness of mechanisms, contexts, and biases (McCrae, 2009). Bibliometrically it is

difficult to keep personality and social psychology articles separate from each other in these

journals at least. There is no strict criterion and numerous papers could be classified into these

two categories simultaneously. Therefore it is possible that either some credits or faults of one

of these parties may be wrongly attributed to the other.


18/30


18

Author Notes

Jri Allik, Department of Psychology, University of Tartu, Estonia.

Writing this paper was supported by a grant from the Estonian Ministry of Education and

Science (SF0180029s08). I am very grateful to Anu Realo and Ren Mttus for their valuable

comments and suggestions.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jri Allik, Department of

Psychology, University of Tartu, Tiigi 78, Tartu 50410, Estonia. Electronic mail may be sent

to [email protected].


19/30


19

References

Aksnes, D. W. (2006). Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution.Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 169-185.

Allik, J. (2008). Quality of Estonian science estimated through bibliometric indicators (1997-

2007). Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 57, 255-264.

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York,: Holt.

Bedford, A. (2007). Countries of origin of Personality and Individual Differences (PAID)

contributors: A comparison of 2003-2005 with 1999-2001 and 1993-1995. Personality

and Individual Differences, 42(2), 391-393.

Berry, J. B., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural

psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A

meta-analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080-1107.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits

across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81(2), 322-331.

Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to

prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing

authoritarianism?European Journal of Personality, 18(6), 463-482.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:

Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82(5), 804-818.


20/30


20

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et

al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain

personality measures.Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five

personality domains.Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different

Sets of Moral Foundations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5),

1029-1046.

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding

and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17-41.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:

Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being.Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.

Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What

makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology.

Scientometrics, 76(1), 169-185.

Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2010). Predicting long-term citation impact of articles in social and

personality psychology. Psychological Reports, 106(3), 891-900.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010a). Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based

behavioral science.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 111-135.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010b). Most people are not WEIRD.Nature,

466(7302), 29-29.

Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How Should the Internal Structure of Personality

Inventories Be Evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 332-346.


21/30


21

Jaffe, K. (2011). Do countries with lower self-citation rates produce higher impact papers? Or,

does humility pay?Interciencia, 36(9), 694-698.

John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality

processes, individual differences, and life span development.Journal of Personality,

72(6), 1301-1333.

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad:

Facilitating a Short-Term Mating Strategy in Men.European Journal of Personality,

23(1), 5-18.

Jones, D. (2010). A WEIRD view of human nature skews psychologists' studies. Science,

328(5986), 1627-1627.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem,

neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common

core construct?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693-710.

Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., Ackerman, R. A., & Russell, D. W. (2009). Reporting and

Interpreting Research in PSPB: Practices, Principles, and Pragmatics. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1131-1142.

Krampen, G., von Eye, A., & Schui, G. (2011). Forecasting trends of development of

psychology from a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 87(3), 687-694.

Loughnan, S., Kuppens, P., Allik, J., Balazs, K., De Lemus, S., Dumont, K., et al. (2011).

Economic inequality is linked to biased self-perception. Psychological Science, 22,

DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417003.

Mallon, S. D., Kingsley, D., Affleck, G., & Tennen, H. (1998). Methodological trends in

Journal of Personality: 1970-1995.Journal of Personality, 66(5), 671-685.


22/30


22

Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and

abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach.Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 88(1), 139-157.

McCrae, R. R. (2009). The Physics and Chemistry of Personality. Theory & Psychology,

19(5), 670-687.

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project.

(2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data

from 50 cultures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547-561.

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential

outcomes.Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.

Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary genetics of personality.

European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 549-587.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric

investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.European Journal of

Personality, 15(6), 425-448.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in

two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction.European

Journal of Personality, 17(1), 39-57.

Quiones-Vidal, E., Lopez-Garca, J. J., Pearada-Ortega, M., & Tortosa-Gil, F. (2004). The

nature of social and personality psychology as reflected in JPSP, 1965-2000.Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 435-452.

Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., & de Wit, H. (2006). Dimensions of impulsive

behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality and Individual Differences,

40(2), 305-315.


23/30


23

Riemann, R., & Kandler, C. (2010). Construct Validation Using Multitrait-Multimethod-Twin

Data: The Case of a General Factor of Personality.European Journal of Personality,

24(3), 258-277.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work:

Occupational attainment and job performance.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 86(1), 162-173.

Schmitt, D. P., & 118 Members of the International Sexuality Description Project. (2003).

Universal Sex Differences in the Desire for Sexual Variety: Tests From 52 Nations, 6

Continents, and 13 Islands.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85-

104.

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a

woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168-182.

Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical

review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248-279.

Smits, D. J. M., & Boeck, P. D. (2006). From BIS/BAS to the Big Five.European Journal of

Personality, 20(4), 255-270.

Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Sex differences in school achievement: What are the

roles of personality and achievement motivation?European Journal of Personality,

22(3), 185-209.

van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence

with academic intelligence and the Big Five.European Journal of Personality, 16(2),

103-125.

Vazire, S. (2010). Who Knows What About a Person? The Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry

(SOKA) Model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281-300.


24/30


24

Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks.Nature,

393(6684), 440-442.

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a

structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual

Differences, 30(4), 669-689.

Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. (2005). Validation of the

UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: a four-factor model of impulsivity.European


Yang, Y. J., & Chiu, C. Y. (2009). Mapping the Structure and Dynamics of Psychological

Knowledge: Forty Years of APA Journal Citations (1970-2009).Review of General

Psychology, 13(4), 349-356.


25/30


25

Table 1. Bibliometric record of 25 most prolific counties in the core 9 personality

Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology

Journal of

Personality

Journal of Research

in Personality

European Journal o

Personality

Country/territory Pp Cit Cit/Pp Pp Cit Cit/Pp Pp Cit Cit/Pp Pp Cit Cit/

USA 1 147 47 733 41.62 377 7 196 19.09 509 5 059 9.94 85 1 110 13CANADA 180 6 169 34.27 59 1 005 17.03 71 978 13.77 31 476 15

UK 115 3 396 29.53 31 519 16.74 40 369 9.23 41 786 19

GERMANY 126 4 805 38.13 29 443 15.28 55 469 8.53 68 922 13

NETHERLANDS 130 4 531 34.85 22 222 10.09 23 91 3.96 51 681 13

AUSTRALIA 29 747 25.76 9 100 11.11 28 75 2.68 15 280 18

ISRAEL 35 1 522 43.49 15 179 11.93 13 180 13.85 5 58 11

BELGIUM 25 1 098 43.92 16 164 10.25 15 121 8.07 36 419 11

SPAIN 19 708 37.26 0 0 0.00 8 18 2.25 7 63 9

ITALY 23 757 32.91 7 74 10.57 5 22 4.40 12 161 13

FRANCE 23 1 235 53.70 5 84 16.80 3 9 3.00 4 26 6

PEOPLES R CHINA 25 490 19.60 14 189 13.50 11 48 4.36 5 66 13NEW ZEALAND 12 298 24.83 4 90 22.50 7 83 11.86 6 52 8

SWEDEN 3 403 134.33 5 73 14.60 4 37 9.25 7 178 25

NORWAY 5 199 39.80 1 16 16.00 2 6 3.00 5 42 8

JAPAN 15 244 16.27 3 36 12.00 1 7 7.00 2 38 19

SWITZERLAND 15 204 13.60 7 70 10.00 13 44 3.38 9 47 5

SINGAPORE 14 315 22.50 7 11 1.57 9 31 3.44 1 0 0

FINLAND 3 71 23.67 6 72 12.00 10 86 8.60 18 171 9

AUSTRIA 5 120 24.00 2 41 20.50 2 7 3.50 3 13 4

POLAND 7 181 25.86 2 25 12.50 0 0 0.00 7 58 8

ESTONIA 6 195 32.50 0 0 0.00 6 24 4.00 10 119 11

DENMARK 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 3 3SOUTH KOREA 7 101 14.43 1 3 3.00 4 47 11.75 0 0 0

RUSSIA 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2 46 23.00 2 32 16

Total 1 474 58 068 39.39 518 8 916 17.21 718 6 828 9.51 334 4 194 12


26/30


26

Table 1. Bibliometric record of 25 most prolific counties in the core 9 personality journa

Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin

Journal of

Personality

Assessment

Personality and

Social Psychology

Review

Journal of Personali

Disorders

Pp Cit Cit/Pp Pp Cit Cit/Pp Pp Cit Cit/Pp Pp Cit Cit/

USA 933 18 130 19.43 471 3 942 8.37 153 5 938 38.81 252 3 891 15CANADA 162 2 868 17.70 48 815 16.98 22 664 30.18 60 919 15

UK 106 2 214 20.89 8 41 5.13 18 628 34.89 50 671 13

GERMANY 93 1 776 19.10 25 275 11.00 12 682 56.83 17 258 15

NETHERLANDS 109 1 732 15.89 25 120 4.80 9 238 26.44 34 459 13

AUSTRALIA 56 1 347 24.05 13 90 6.92 14 588 42.00 14 147 10

ISRAEL 32 754 23.56 12 52 4.33 8 343 42.88 0 0 0

BELGIUM 18 397 22.06 10 78 7.80 6 138 23.00 17 212 12

SPAIN 6 127 21.17 9 33 3.67 0 0 0.00 8 59 7

ITALY 15 329 21.93 9 38 4.22 0 0 0.00 7 66 9

FRANCE 19 197 10.37 8 23 2.88 1 209 209.00 3 10 3

PEOPLES R CHINA 17 276 16.24 11 19 1.73 6 169 28.17 5 28 5NEW ZEALAND 13 304 23.38 3 23 7.67 4 71 17.75 2 25 12

SWEDEN 3 56 18.67 9 37 4.11 2 12 6.00 5 46 9

NORWAY 2 28 14.00 14 114 8.14 1 170 170.00 10 103 10

JAPAN 14 331 23.64 5 9 1.80 1 22 22.00 1 56 56

SWITZERLAND 20 189 9.45 5 28 5.60 2 16 8.00 3 17 5

SINGAPORE 14 331 23.64 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

FINLAND 2 18 9.00 7 60 8.57 0 0 0.00 3 28 9

AUSTRIA 3 18 6.00 0 0 0.00 1 42 42.00 1 14 14

POLAND 5 94 18.80 0 0 0.00 4 63 15.75 0 0 0

ESTONIA 1 10 10.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 28 28

DENMARK 1 1 1.00 2 2 1.00 0 0 0.00 7 228 32SOUTH KOREA 10 169 16.90 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

RUSSIA 1 11 11.00 1 1 1.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

Total 933 18 130 19.43 471 3 942 8.37 153 5 938 38.81 252 3 891 15

Note: Pp = papers; Cit = citations; Cit/Pp = citations per papers; UK = aggregate of four separate entities England, Wale

PEOPLES R CHINA = Peoples Republic of China includes also Hong Kong. Countries are ranked according to the tota


27/30


27

Table 2. Two most cited personality articles published in the 9 core personality journals for

years 2001-2010.

Year Paper Citations

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and

impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand

impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669-689.

3652001

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences

in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.


362

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are

measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and

generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?


2392002

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in

personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals.


274

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion

regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-

being.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.

4892003

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief

measure of the Big-Five personality domains.Journal of Research in

Personality, 37(6), 504-528.

374

John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion

regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span

development.Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1301-1333.

1632004

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of

work: Occupational attainment and job performance.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162-173.

129

Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the

structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative

hierarchical approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

88(1), 139-157.

2082005

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality

Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). Universal features of personality

traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures.Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547-561.

183

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C.,

Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item

pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.Journal

of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96.

2222006

Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., & de Wit, H. (2006).

Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral

122


28/30


28

measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 305-315.

Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary

genetics of personality.European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 549-

587.

1002007

Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations betweenpersonality and coping: A meta-analysis.Journal of Personality and


76

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a

man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality

traits across 55 cultures.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 94(1), 168-182.

642008

Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-

analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 12(3), 248-279.

57

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R.(2009). Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III.

Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity.Journal of Personality and


1442009

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and Conservatives

Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations.Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.

51

Vazire, S. (2010). Who Knows What About a Person? The Self-Other

Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA) Model.Journal of Personality and


182010

Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How Should the Internal

Structure of Personality Inventories Be Evaluated? Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 332-346.

15

Note: Search in the Web of Science was done on January 6, 2012


29/30


29

Table 3. The most cited articles published in the Euroepan Journal of Psychology for years

2001-2010

Citations Paper

166 Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence:Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.


46 van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional

intelligence with academic intelligence and the Big Five.European Journal

of Personality, 16(2), 103-125.

126 Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence:

Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity

to mood induction.European Journal of Personality, 17(1), 39-57.

71 Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters

most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, orright-wing authoritarianism?European Journal of Personality, 18(6), 463-

482.

69 Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. (2005).

Validation of the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: a four-factor model of

impulsivity.European Journal of Personality, 19(7), 559-574.

30 Smits, D. J. M., & Boeck, P. D. (2006). From BIS/BAS to the Big Five.


100 Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary genetics

of personality.European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 549-587.21 Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Sex differences in school achievement:

What are the roles of personality and achievement motivation?European


19 Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark

Triad: Facilitating a Short-Term Mating Strategy in Men.European Journal

of Personality, 23(1), 5-18.

9 Riemann, R., & Kandler, C. (2010). Construct Validation Using Multitrait-

Multimethod-Twin Data: The Case of a General Factor of Personality.


Note: Search in the Web of Science was done on January 6, 2012.


30/30


Table 4. Ranking of journals having the highest number of citing papers to 8,510 papers

published in the core 9 personality journals during 2001-2010

Rank Source Title Papers

Percent

of 59,567

1 PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES* 1851 3.11%2 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY* 1204 2.02%

3 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN* 934 1.57%

4 JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 856 1.44%

5 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY* 590 0.99%

6 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 502 0.84%

7 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 473 0.79%

8 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT* 382 0.64%

9 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY* 381 0.64%

10 JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 326 0.55%11 SEX ROLES 322 0.54%

12 EMOTION 320 0.54%

13 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY* 294 0.49%

14 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS* 291 0.49%

15 JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 280 0.47%

16 COGNITION EMOTION 263 0.44%

17 GROUP PROCESSES INTERGROUP RELATIONS 253 0.43%

18 SOCIAL COGNITION 246 0.41%

19 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS 240 0.40%

20 BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY 222 0.37%

21 PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 213 0.36%

22 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY 212 0.36%

23

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION

PROCESSES 206 0.35%

24 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 197 0.33%

25 PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN 197 0.33%

26 PSYCHOLOGY AND AGING 197 0.33%

27 ADVANCES IN CONSUMER RESEARCH 194 0.33%

28 JOURNAL OF CROSS CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY 194 0.33%

29 DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 193 0.32%

30 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH 190 0.32%

31 JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY 186 0.31%

32 BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 178 0.30%

33 BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 176 0.30%

34 PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 173 0.29%

35 MOTIVATION AND EMOTION 168 0.28%

Note: * = core personality journal analysed in this paper; PSPR is on the 38th position with

163 citing papers.

bibliometry of personality psychology r2 6-01-2012

Documents