UO’s 100 most excellent faculty, from Google Scholar

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_org&hl=en&org=822421448073898796 ¹, ², ³

Caveats:

1: Some of these faculty are no longer at UO and many UO faculty have not yet claimed their pubs on Google (which is very easy to do).

2: This is a ridiculous way to measure “Research Excellence”, whatever that is. Of course if we added h-indexes, impact-factors, and grants llike Academic Analytics does, then these metrics would appear to be more credible – but would they be any more useful for deciding which department should get more faculty lines?

Rank of Excellence Name Citations Title/Afilliation
#1 David M Strom 150,153 Prof of Physics, UO
#2 Paul Slovic 147,893 Decision Research and UO
#3 Eric Torrence 136,713 UO
#4 Michael I. Posner 124,364 Prof Emeritus of psychology UO
#5 Mark Johnson 93,148 Philip H. Knight Prof of Liberal Arts and Sciences, UO
#6 Raymond Frey 82,964 Department of Physics, UO
#7 William H Starbuck 44,971 UO
#8 David A. McCormick 38,787 Prof, UO; Prof Emeritus, Yale University
#9 John Postlethwait 28,135 Prof of Biology, UO
#10 Alan D. Meyer 22,406 Prof of Management, UO
#11 Patrick J. Bartlein 21,006 Prof of Geography, UO
#12 Helen Neville 19,618 Prof, Psychology and Neuroscience, UO
#13 cq doe 18,471 Univ Oregon
#14 Dipongkar Talukder 17,694 Postdoctoral Research Scholar, UO
#15 Russell J. Donnelly 17,344 UO
#16 Linda Price 17,303 Prof of Marketing, UO
#17 Joan Acker 17,134 Sociology, UO
#18 John Bellamy Foster 16,757 Prof of Sociology, UO
#19 Jon Erlandson 15,562 Prof of Anthropology, Executive Director of the Museum of Natural & Cultural Historty …
#20 Lynn Kahle 15,535 Prof of Marketing, UO
#21 Gregory John Retallack 15,531 UO
#22 Judith H. Hibbard 14,650 Prof Emerita at the UO
#23 Sanjay Srivastava 14,642 Associate Prof of Psychology, UO
#24 Nicholas Allen 14,469 UO
#25 Brendan Bohannan 13,609 Prof of Environmental Studies and Biology, UO
#26 Greg Bothun 13,244 UO
#27 David O. Conover 12,695 UO
#28 Kraimer, Maria 12,670 UO
#29 Shannon Boettcher 12,148 Assoc. Prof. Chemistry, UO
#30 Scott Seibert 11,663 UO
#31 Jennifer Freyd 11,493 UO
#32 Michael G. Raymer 11,428 Prof of Physics, Department of Physics and Oregon Center for Optics, University of …
#33 James E. Hutchison 10,988 Lokey-Harrington Chair in Chemistry, UO
#34 Albert O. Edwards, MD, PhD 10,621 Oregon Retina, Oregon Health Sciences University, UO, Mayo Clinic …
#35 Bruce Bowerman 10,586 Institute of Molecular Biology, UO
#36 Douglas Hintzman 10,316 Emeritus Prof of Psychology, UO
#37 ulrich mayr 10,219 UO
#38 William Cresko 9,899 UO
#39 Bruce Blonigen 9,526 UO
#40 Jessica L. Green 9,371 UO
#41 Phil Fisher 9,308 UO
#42 Michael M. Haley 9,283 Richard M. & Patricia H. Noyes Prof of Chemistry, UO
#43 Christopher Minson 9,064 Prof of Human Physiology, UO
#44 T. Bettina Cornwell 9,032 Prof of Marketing, UO
#45 George W Evans 8,848 UO
#46 Gerard Saucier 8,390 Prof of Psychology, UO
#47 Louis Moses 8,232 Department of Psychology, UO
#48 Craig M. Young 8,143 Prof of Biology, UO
#49 Alice Barkan 8,123 UO
#50 Reza Rejaie 8,026 Prof of Computer and Information Science, UO
#51 Andrew Karduna 7,985 UO
#52 alan l shanks 7,793 UO
#53 Patrick C. Phillips 7,616 Prof of Biology, Institute for Ecology and Evolution, UO
#54 David C. Johnson 7,526 Prof of Chemistry, UO
#55 John R Halliwill, PhD 7,426 Department of Human Physiology, UO
#56 John Conery 7,380 Prof of Biology, UO
#57 Richard York 7,344 Prof of Sociology and Environmental Studies, UO
#58 Scott Bridgham 7,341 Prof of Biology and Environmental Studies, UO
#59 Nash Unsworth 7,336 UO
#60 Michael V. Russo 7,278 Lundquist Prof of Sustainable Management, UO
#61 Stephen Fickas 7,171 Prof of Computer and Information Science UO
#62 Trudy Ann Cameron 7,020 RF Mikesell Prof of Environmental and Resource Economics, UO
#63 Paul J. Wallace 6,853 UO
#64 Robert M. O’Brien 6,685 Prof of Sociology, UO
#65 Allen D. Malony 6,588 UO
#66 Eric A. Johnson 6,567 Associate Prof, Inst. of Molecular Biology, UO. Founder, SNPsaurus
#67 Jean Stockard 6,539 UO
#68 Ronald B. Mitchell 6,444 Prof of Political Science, UO
#69 Gordon C. Nagayama Hall 6,314 UO
#70 Leslie Leve 6,137 UO
#71 Marjorie Taylor 5,860 UO
#72 Hailin Wang 5,729 Prof, Department of Physics, UO, Eugene, Oregon, USA
#73 David Krinsley 5,614 Courtesy Prof of Earth Sciences, UO
#74 Ilya Bindeman 5,543 Prof of Geology, U of Oregon
#75 William T Harbaugh 5,457 Prof of Economics, UO
#76 Jennifer H. Pfeifer 5,456 Associate Prof, UO
#77 Yuan Xu 5,446 Prof of Mathematics, UO
#78 SJ van Enk 5,405 UO
#79 Karen Guillemin 5,343 Prof of Biology, UO
#80 Li-Shan Chou 5,294 UO
#81 Kim Sheehan 5,294 UO
#82 Ray Weldon 5,154 Prof of Geology, UO
#83 CJ Pascoe 5,082 Associate Prof of Sociology, UO
#84 Dietrich Belitz 4,982 UO
#85 Josh Roering 4,860 Prof, Department of Earth Sciences, UO
#86 Scott DeLancey 4,849 UO
#87 Sara D. Hodges 4,683 UO
#88 George von Dassow 4,658 UO
#89 Holly Arrow 4,554 Prof of Psychology, UO
#90 Douglas R. Toomey 4,448 UO
#91 Joe Stone 4,377 Prof of economics UO
#92 Daniel G. Gavin 4,328 Associate Prof, Department of Geography, UO
#93 Ken Prehoda 4,322 Prof of Chemistry, UO
#94 Jeremy Piger 4,184 Prof of Economics, UO
#95 Michael Pluth 4,126 Associate Prof, UO
#96 Victoria DeRose 4,038 Prof of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UO
#97 Elizabeth Stormshak 4,005 Prof, Counseling Psychology, UO
#98 Lynn Stephen 3,990 UO
#99 Sameer Shende 3,943 Director, Performance Research Laboratory, UO and President, ParaTools …
#100 Kryn Stankunas 3,898
Associate Prof of Biology, Institute of Molecular Biology, UO

3: Duck basketball coach Dana Altman’s RPI rank has now dropped to #89, after UO gave him a contract amendment in June that raised his buyout cost to $14M.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to UO’s 100 most excellent faculty, from Google Scholar

  1. Dog says:

    Faculty lines should go to new emerging areas of research and inquiries and to new approaches. The last thing that faculty lines should have ever have gone to are DEPARTMENTS – once upon a time, immediate post WW 2 that was probably necessary but not any more.

    For resource poor Universities, like us, this inevitably pits departments against each other and cultivates a Dean’s Leadership that only cares about budgets and protection and not about advancing and evolving the academic mission of a University.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)
  2. A Non says:

    Interesting, but doesn’t seem very highly correlated with the quantity of actual useful knowledge generated.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
    • Dog says:

      only engineers produce useful knowledge, therefore the UO has no entrants in this contest

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
    • UO Community Member (not an academic) says:

      UO seems to keep up with, or surpass, comparable institutions when it comes to top 5-6 cited researchers. However, it doesn’t keep up with the pack after that.

      Of course, there are a few retired researchers that would probably each have a could hundred thousand citations (Franklin Stahl, Brian Matthews, and recent hire David Wineland) if they had Google Scholar profiles.

      That said citation quantity does not = quality as many others have stated.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
  3. duckduckgo says:

    As an example of how these lists can be based on error-filled data, #54 should drop a dozen positions as the most-highly cited paper on his profile is not his but a similarly-named person. Google Scholar does just an OK job in attributing papers correctly.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    • uomatters says:

      #75’s most cited paper (884 cites) was published in 2002. It was an attempt to replicate the results of “Economic Growth and the Environment” https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=f46No0UAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra which was published by others in 1995 (6036 cites).

      We found serious errors in the data used in the 1995 paper, and showed that fixing these and making slight changes in the empirical specification reversed the results.

      The original 1995 paper was cited 475 times last year. Our 2002 paper was cited 69 times.

      Some people are making a good living off sloppy science, and UO’s new metrics plan will reinforce those incentives.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
  4. Accounting is fun says:

    Interesting since tax accounting produced by UO accounting faculty was just ranked no. 1 in the world in quality and influence for the past 6 and 12 years by the BYU rankings. BYU rankings are very well respected. None of the faculty are included on this list.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  5. UO Community Member says:

    The Oregonian has published two recent pieces on home grown research:

    -One on top researchers
    http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2018/02/oregons_science_superstars_a_l.html

    -And another on research driving the economy of the future
    http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2018/02/is_oregon_great_science_projec.html

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  6. old man says:

    #7’s most cited pub appears to have been written by someone else, and makes up MOST of his cits. Since its an econ pub, perhaps UOM can explain it all to us.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • old man says:

      Actually,
      #2 ,#7 & #15 all claim many citations for publications not theirs! ….. “Their” most cited pub . Odd to say the least.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Dog says:

        #15 is deceased as well and has been for about 5 years

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • old man says:

          Hard to tell who set up #15s account, probably not him,but it was someone from UO. But the Donnelly had a distinguished career, and received several noteworthy honors. Certainly aided UO’s external reputation. In science, anyway.
          Like many folks I use GS with a grain of salt, and always look more carefully; I prefer web-of-science, as do organizations like NRC, AAU and so forth.
          Funny, but when I read Banavar’s description of the use UO wants to make of impact METRICS it all seems quite reasonable. Us hard science types are pretty used to being judged by pub counts, citation counts, grant $, honors [ like membership in NAS, etc] and so forth.
          George Streisinger early work had earned election to NAS before he began to develop the zebra fish system; indeed his early work probably made his investment in the long term fish project possible, and the lack of quick pubs that resulted during it.
          Every one knows the cit counts cant JUST BE COMPARED across disciplines;…. but I can compare within disciplines, just like NRC does in ranking doctoral programs.
          One might conclude from UOM’s extremely critical recent focus on impact metrics that they are some great evil, or at least often subject to misuse; I have more faith in Banavar, et al [ I know some of his own work quite well, and really respect his judgement].

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
          • Dog says:

            yes RJD was very impactful in a lot of areas and I don’t believe
            he was properly acknowledged for these other areas.

            He did raise the UO profile, considerably in my view.

            I am just saying he doesn;t belong a list that presumably is related to still active researchers at the UO

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. Anas clypeata says:

    I wonder if comparable universities can match the U of O in the number of top-100 professors who have sued the university.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  8. Bob Keefer says:

    Checking myself out, I find that I’m credited with two articles.

    One was a programming piece published in Byte magazine in 1986 — yes, a mere 32 years ago — and is correctly cited. The other, apparently picked randomly from thousands of pieces I wrote in 30 years at The Register-Guard, may or may not have been by me.

    Google provides an abstract written in academese that is like nothing I have ever written even in my worst nightmares, but no link to the actual story, which I can’t recall from the abstract.

    But I’m sure the system is totally accurate.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
  9. Just Another Volunteer says:

    Folks may want to take a look at:
    https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html#coverage

    There are some important limits on the scholar data sets.

    If you’re interested in a more robust (and individual scholar centric) system you might want to look into the ORCID:
    https://orcid.org/

    UO isn’t listed in the current org list…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
  10. Dog says:

    Yes there are lots of these databases and various H-index calculators out there. There is also the G-index proposed in 2006 which has a lot of merit and gives a better indication of impact.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-006-0144-7

    In my own case of meager scholarship (not sure I can even make the top 999 at UO) I have compared various databases and found that they all return the same numbers to an accuracy of 5-10% – although this is name dependent.

    Since I generally publish (again meagerly) as Grand Dog Poobah
    my name is (GDP) is generally unique as there are not that many articles, particularly in economics journals, about GDP.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
  11. Ted Bell says:

    Can we now refer to you as “Old #75” ?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    • Vernon Dozier says:

      (Nice to see a Phil Hendrie fan on this forum!)

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      • Ted Bell says:

        I’m mostly unfamiliar with his work…sadly…Ted Bell is my actual name

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
  12. XDH says:

    Citations are but one of myriad metrics to measure “excellence”. My “excellence” would decrease somewhat as my #1 cited paper is something I did as a PhD student and thus has NOTHING to do with UO. Based on what I know of other top 40 people, especially those within my own department, many others would be similarly impacted/”demoted” as their top cited papers were from their PhD and/or postdoc periods.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    • Dog says:

      This is one of the arguments in favor of using the G-index as it does a better job of measuring “sustained” citation over one’s career.

      One can use raw citations as some kind of research deadwood indicator. Divide a person’s career up into two halves and take the ratio – if the ratio of the first half to the second half is greater than X (X = 10?) – then that is an indicator that they are now longer “relevant” to that particular research. The G-index kind of
      does this.

      All I am saying is that citation behavior over time carries with it a lot more information than a number on spreadsheet.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  13. Just to explain some of the data there says:

    In the sciences if you are a student or a postdoc with a very famous advisor, you have papers that are cited many times. Yes: your advisor is a famous person and UofO would like to have that person here. Sometimes you can become a famous scientist too, but it is not a given.

    And if you make a good review article, you have good chances of being cited multiple times by colleagues that are looking for citing a comprehensive review of the field. However, if you keep writing review articles and you don’t make new science, you are a overly cited, dead duck, scientist.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.