Every full-time faculty member in the George Mason University Department of
Psychology — professors, instructors, everyone — measured the same way from two independent
bibliometric databases. Two things this shows that a hand-picked list never could:
how concentrated the department's research impact really is, and how much any one
person's "number" depends on which database you cite. Cards on the table.
1 · The whole department — a few people carry most of the impact
Every full-time faculty member, ranked by OpenAlex citations (linear scale, so
the real skew is visible — not hidden by a log axis). The dashed line is the department
median. Bars at zero are faculty with no indexed research profile (instructors, clinicians).
2 · Your rank is not a fact — it moves with the source
Each line is one faculty member with a profile on both databases; left = rank by
OpenAlex, right = rank by Google Scholar. Lines that cross are people whose standing depends
on which source you open.
3 · Breadth vs. depth
Horizontal = breadth (number of works); vertical = depth (h-index); marker size =
total citations. OpenAlex, fragmentation-corrected. Top-right is broad and deep.
4 · Who depends most on which database?
Fold-gap = larger citation count ÷ smaller, across the two sources. Near 1× =
source-proof; a long bar = the headline is a choice. Hover for CV and both counts.
5A · Your citation trajectory
Citations received each year, both sources. The gap is the same story at the
individual level: Scholar counts more (conference papers, chapters, self-citations).
2026 is a projection* (hollow marker, dashed) — year-to-date citations scaled to a full
year by the fraction of the year elapsed at the snapshot date. A flat, linear estimate, not a model.
5B · Career-centered trajectories — the whole department
Every faculty member's trajectory, each re-centered so year 0 = their first indexed
citation. Strip away when someone started and you can compare the shape of a career:
who accelerates, who plateaus, who is still climbing. Hover any line to trace one person; your lab is
always lit. (These databases post-date many careers, so early years can be undercounted; the current
year is projected as in 5A.)
SourceMeasureScaleMedian
Career year 0 = each person's first year with an indexed citation on the selected source.
Your lab is highlighted; hover any faint line to trace it, or click to pin it for a head-to-head
(click again to unpin). The dashed line is the median — of the whole department or just your own
rank — because a few superstars would make the mean misleading; it's drawn only where enough faculty
have reached that career year.
6 · Relative to the pack experimental
Each faculty's cumulative citations divided by the department median at the same career
year. The solid line at 1× is the median itself: above it means pulling ahead of the typical
colleague at that stage, below means behind. This strips out both career length and absolute
scale, so it asks one honest question — are you out- or under-performing the middle of the pack, and is
the gap widening or closing over a career? (Shares the pins from 5B — click any line.)
Source
Cumulative citations ÷ department median, matched by career year (log axis; the median is
1× by construction). Your lab is highlighted; hover to trace, click to pin.
Read with care: the median itself rises as junior faculty mature, so a line can drift
down without any real decline — it just means the pack caught up. This chart measures
position relative to a moving target, not absolute productivity. For that, see 5B (cumulative)
and 7–9 below.
7 · Impact per paper experimental
Citations ÷ number of works — influence density, not volume. It separates
"publishes a lot" from "publishes work the field actually cites." A long back-catalogue of rarely-cited
papers lands low here; a few field-shaping papers land high. (OpenAlex only — it's the source with a
clean work count. Field norms differ, so read within rank, not across disciplines.)
Mean citations per indexed work, sorted. Colored by rank; your lab outlined. Hover for the
underlying cites ÷ works.
8 · Still cited now? experimental
Career citations (horizontal) vs. recent citation rate — average citations received
per year since 2020 (vertical). The dashed line is the department's typical ratio of the two. Above it =
getting cited more than a back-catalogue that size would predict (still landing); below and to
the right = a large body of work that the field has largely stopped citing. A post-COVID pulse check.
Both axes log. Recent rate projects the current year as in 5A. OpenAlex. Your lab outlined
and labeled; hover any point.
9 · Citations by rank experimental
Every faculty member as a dot on their rank's row (log citation axis), with each rank's
median marked. Ranks are supposed to reflect a rising research record — so a dot that sits far to
the left of its row, down among a more junior rank's range, is the signal worth discussing. The question
isn't any one person; it's whether rank and research impact still track each other here.
Source
OpenAlex career citations, log scale. Dashed tick = that rank's median. OpenAlex-unresolved
faculty (e.g. a fragmented record) are absent — itself a kind of finding. Your lab outlined.
10 · Coasting vs. climbing experimental
Two things at once: accumulated stature (career citations, horizontal) and current
momentum (average citations per year since 2020, vertical). The dashed cross-hairs are the department
medians, splitting everyone into four quadrants — Sustained (big and still landing), Rising
(early but accelerating), Slowing (a large body of work the field cites less each year), and
Quiet. Where you sit — and where the senior ranks sit — is the whole question.
Source
OpenAlex, both axes log; current year projected as in 5A. Colored by rank; your lab outlined
and labeled. The Slowing quadrant (lower-right) is where accumulated citations outrun recent activity.
The full table
Sorted by OpenAlex citations. “—” marks no indexed profile on that source. See
the notes below on unresolved cases.