Monday, 3 September 2012

Bibliometricking J Cheminf

Just for fun, a week or two ago I decided to check out who are the most prolific authors in J. Cheminf. I downloaded the TOC in Endnote format from the journal website, and analysed it with the short script below.

There were 295 authors in total (after merging of I think a single duplicate), and all of the authors with 2 or more papers are as follows (by no. of publications, then reverse alphabetical by surname):
14 Peter Murray-Rust
8 Stephen Bryant
8 Evan Bolton
7 Sam Adams
6 Egon Willighagen
6 Joe Townsend
6 Sunghwan Kim
5 Andreas Zell
5 Antony Williams
5 Andreas Jahn
5 Georg Hinselmann
4 David Wild
4 Christoph Steinbeck
4 Noel O'Boyle
4 Geoffrey Hutchison
3 Tim Vandermeersch
3 Henry Rzepa
3 Lars Rosenbaum
3 Matthias Rarey
3 Stefan Kramer
3 David Jessop
3 Nina Jeliazkova
3 Marcus Hanwell
3 Nikolas Fechner
3 Peter Ertl
2 Erik van Mulligen
2 Peter Willett
2 Valery Tkachenko
2 Jens Thomas
2 Ola Spjuth
2 Christopher Southan
2 Weerapong Phadungsukanan
2 Ben O'Steen
2 Sorel Muresan
2 David Lonie
2 Andrew Lang
2 Jan Kors
2 Jos Kleinjans
2 Andreas Karwath
2 Jochen Junker
2 Vedrin Jeliazkov
2 Craig James
2 Jonathan Hirst
2 Kristina Hettne
2 Lezan Hawizy
2 Martin Gutlein
2 Rajarshi Guha
2 Mikhail Elyashberg
2 Michel Dumontier
2 Ying Ding
2 Open Source Drug Discovery Consortium
2 Leonid Chepelev
2 Fabian Buchwald
2 Jean-Claude Bradley
2 Kirill Blinov
...and here's the script used to calculate this:

3 comments:

  1. Hans-Christian Ehrlich co-authored at least 3 papers at JChemInf: "Searching substructures in fragment spaces", "Systematic benchmark of substructure search in molecular graphs - From Ullmann to VF2" and "Chemical pattern visualization in 2D – the SMARTSviewer". How come he isn't on the list?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, a test case. See http://www.jcheminf.com/search/results?terms=ehrlich.

    Ehrlich authored a single research article. J Cheminf also includes the abstract from an oral presentation and a poster by him from Goslar, but I do not include these in the analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A-ha! Makes sense. Seems the "Fragment spaces" paper was actually published elsewhere, which is how I was confused that it was a paper.

    ReplyDelete