Ranking of quotes from philosophers based on Scopus data (updated)

An information database regarding citation of researchers has been updated and now includes information on citation rates of researchers, including philosophers, up to 2020.

“Version 3” of the “Scientific Author Databases Updated of Standardized Citation Indicators”, using data from Scopus, the publisher Elsevier’s abstract and citation database, includes information up to ‘in 2020.

The report’s authors, Jeroen Baas, Kevin Boyack and John PA Ioannidis, write:

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly accessible database of over 100,000 top scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h index, hm index adjusted for co-author, citations of articles in different author positions and a composite indicator. Separate data are presented for career impact and single year. Metrics with and without self-citations and the ratio of citations to citing articles are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 176 sub-fields. Domain and subdomain specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists who have published 5 or more papers. Career-long data is updated until the end of 2020. Selection is based on the top 100,000 by C score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or higher.

Below you will find the philosophers in this selection ranked by total number of citations during their careers until the end of 2020.

[UPDATE 1: There appear to be a number of philosophers and philosophical works not counted or undercounted in Scopus. See some of the comments for details. Feel free to note additional omissions. Also see Update 2, below.]

You will find the order below for the year 2020 only:

I’m advised that Scopus lacks a bit of philosophy, so take the above with a grain of salt. As others have pointed out, many familiar names are missing from these lists. If anyone has a good explanation of why, please share it.

You can check the data yourself here.

UPDATE 2: In a comment below, Shaun Gallagher offers a possible explanation of why some expected names are missing or inferior to these lists. An extract:

Update of the databases of scientific authors of standardized citation indicators. PLoS Biol 18 (10) classifies according to primary and secondary disciplines, if applicable. This gives rise to some strange classifications. Andy Clark, John Searle, Dan Dennett and I are listed in precisely the same disciplines and in the same order of disciplines – we are all listed with a first discipline of experimental psychology and a second discipline of philosophy – probably because most of our quotes are by researchers in experimental fields. In the list posted above, I think the domain specific ranks are only provided for the first domain. Maybe that’s why Dennett, etc. missing.

Kevin A. Perras