My primary interest in tracking citations is not to create a leaderboard of scholars based on their productivity. Instead, I use the information that I assemble to examine what is being published, where it is being published, and how it is being acknowledged within the ‘conversation’ that is urban planning scholarship. This is driven by the question, “What is planning?” The ‘conversation’ includes other modes of communications such as social media content, conference materials, and profile information generated by planning faculty. This includes some analyses using the (old) ACSP Guide to Planning Education, “Mapping the Knowledge Domain of Planning,” Twitter data, “Urban Planning Academics: Tweets and Citations,” and publication data, “The Most Frequently Cited Topics in Urban Planning Scholarship.”
Based on the Google Scholar Citation Profile data I assembled recently (see “Urban/City Planning Google Scholar Profiles from Around the World”), I performed network analyses of co-mentioned tags or labels within the 3,684 profiles in the list. Overall, there were 3,465 unique (raw) labels used which resulted in an extensive network. The top 20 labels (shown below) accounted for 41% of the total mentions and the top 100 accounted for 57%. The most popular was “Urban Planning” used by 61% of the profiles, followed by “Spatial Planning” used by 13% of profiles, and “Urban and Regional Planning” used by 9% of profiles.
