Search

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open data as an integral part of the open science movement enhances the openness and sharing of scientific datasets. Nevertheless, the normative utilization of data journals, data papers, scientific datasets, and data citations necessitates further research. This study aims to investigate the citation practices associated with data papers and to explore the role of data papers in disseminating scientific datasets. Dataset accession numbers from NCBI databases were employed to analyze the prevalence of data citations for data papers from PubMed Central. A dataset citation practice identification rule was subsequently established. The findings indicate a consistent growth in the number of biomedical data journals published in recent years, with data papers gaining attention and recognition as both publications and data sources. Although the use of data papers as citation sources for data remains relatively rare, there has been a steady increase in data paper citations for data utilization through formal data citations. Furthermore, the increasing proportion of datasets reported in data papers that are employed for analytical purposes highlights the distinct value of data papers in facilitating the dissemination and reuse of datasets to support novel research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow‐up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2‐fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar‐based computer‐generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen‐papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen‐papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer‐review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study assessed the features of the 100 most‐cited papers on oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL). Methods: The 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers were collected from Web of Science, adopting a combined keyword search strategy. Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched to compare citations. The following data were extracted from papers: title of the paper, number of citations, authorship, country, year of publication, title of the journal, study design, sample size, topic and OHRQoL instruments used. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using VOSviewer software. Results: The number of citations of the top 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers ranged from 73 to 949. Fifty‐six papers received at least 100 citations and two received more than 400 citations. Most papers were from Canada (23%) and had been published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (37%). David Locker was the most‐cited author (25 papers; 3,521 citations). The cross‐sectional study design was the most common (68%). The impact of oral health conditions on OHRQoL (43%) was the most frequent topic, and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) was the most commonly used OHRQoL instrument (48%). Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis highlighted the characteristics of the 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers, demonstrating that this field is far from saturated. This list of the most‐cited articles can provide a reference point to guide oral health research, education and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To examine a series of papers from top ranked orthopaedic journals with respect to the number of citations over a 10-year observation period to identify factors that lead to high citation rates. Methods: The Web of Science database was consulted to identify all published papers from the first-year term of 2010 (January-May) from four top orthopaedic journals: AJSM, Arthroscopy, JBJS Am and KSSTA. The database was used to analyze and compare the papers with respect to their characteristics and citations up to 2019. Basic information for each paper was collected including the author, country, study type and average citations per year (ACY). The most (Top20%) and least (Bottom20%) frequently cited papers were identified and differences were extracted. Results: Five hundred sixteen papers were included with a total of 19,261 citations. Most of the published papers were from the United States (n = 245). On average, a paper received 37.3 citations over the 10-year observation period. The most cited paper was cited 322 times. The most cited study type was randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Ø80.8). The Top20% papers were cited 37 times more often than the Bottom20%. Among the Top20%, the largest group was cohort study (n = 20) followed by case series (n = 19). Among others, the number of authors, the number of keywords and the number of references significantly correlated with the number of citations (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Factors influencing citation frequency were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To more reasonably allocate a paper's credit, this article argues that both a paper's authors and references contribute to a given paper. Accordingly, we quantitatively represent the proportion of contributions from each author and reference to a paper. A paper's credit can be allocated among its authors and references based on their contributions. All papers carry innate credit because of publication. If cited, they also carry external credit from the citing papers. The proportion of a paper's credit allocated to references can be regarded as a credit output and serves as an input for these references. In this scenario, only the credit assigned to a paper's authors remains as the paper's deserved credit. The credit of papers can be transferred in a direction opposite that of knowledge diffusion. Via this method, the estimate of an individual reference's contribution incorporates content‐based citation analysis, a promising method to differentiate different citations. A paper's deserved credit represents the contribution of the paper's authors to the scientific community via the new knowledge they provide in the paper. Therefore, it is rational to evaluate papers according to their deserved credit, not the credit they carry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journals occasionally solicit manuscripts for special collections, in which all papers are focused on a particular topic within the journal's scope. For the Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, there have been 51 special collections from 2005 through 2018, with a total of 1,009 papers out of the 8,881 total papers in the journal over those years (11%). Taken together, the citations to special collection papers, as well as other metrics, are slightly higher than papers not in special collections. Several paper characteristics were examined to assess whether they could explain the higher citation and download values for special collection papers, but they cannot. In addition, indirect methods were conducted for assessing self‐citations as an explanation for the increased citations, but no evidence was found to support this hypothesis. It was found that some paper types, notably Commentaries and Technical Reports, have lower average citations but higher average downloads than Research Articles (the most common type of paper in this journal). This implies that such paper types have a different kind of impact than "regular" science‐result‐focused papers. In addition to having higher average citations and downloads, special collections focus community attention on that particular research topic, providing a deadline for manuscript submissions and a single webpage at which many related papers are listed. It is concluded that special collections are worth the extra community effort in organization, writing, and reviewing these papers. Plain Language Summary: Journals sometimes focus the attention of the research community by having a special collection, even an entire issue, devoted to a single topic. A reasonable question to ask is whether the extra effort of organizing, promoting, and maintaining the special collection is worthwhile. This paper examines paper impact in this journal, the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics, separating the special collection papers from those not in special collections. The short answer is, on average, yes, at least based on the metric of citations. Some characteristics of the paper were also assessed, such as the use of a colon in the title, the average author team size, the average number of references in each paper, and the paper type of the articles. None of these factors explains the higher average citations and downloads for papers in special collections. In this analysis, though, it was found that several paper types have lower‐than‐average citations but higher‐than‐average downloads, including Commentaries (personal perspectives articles) and Technical Reports (describing new methods or data sets). This implies that such papers are being read but perhaps not heavily referenced (yet). The overall conclusion is that special collections are worth the extra work. Key Points: JGR Space Physics published 51 special collections from 2006 to 2018, totaling 1,009 papers out of 8,881Average citations and downloads are slightly higher for papers in special collections compared to those not in collectionsPaper attributes thought to influence citations were analyzed, finding no statistically significant effect for special collection papers compared to others [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aims to analyze and visualize the top dental papers from 2012 to 2022 using data from essential science indicators (ESIs). Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted using library and retrospective bibliometric analysis methods. Additionally, a science map has been created. Web of Science was searched on January 18, 2023. The results were limited to the top papers in ESIs. The bibliometric information of the top papers was evaluated. Next, the VOSviewer was used to perform a co‐occurrence analysis and visualize data. Results: The findings showed that Mariano Belén Sanz and Maurizio S. Tonetti were the top two authors. The University of London and the University of Bern had the highest number of articles. These articles were published in 55 journals. According to the analysis of keyword co‐occurrence, the most frequently used keywords in the field of dentistry include "periodontitis," "dental implants," "periodontal disease," "mechanical properties," "peri‐implantitis," "oral health," "dental caries," "dental materials," "3D printing." Conclusion: The findings of this study enable readers to pinpoint the authors, organizations, countries, and journals that have made the biggest contributions to the list of the most often cited dentistry papers. In medicine, bibliometric citation analysis is frequently used to assist researchers in learning the fundamentals of a subject and pinpoint subtopics of broad interest for additional study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our understanding of the oxytocin system has been built over the last 70 years by the work of hundreds of scientists, reported in thousands of papers. Here, we construct a map to that literature, using citation network analysis in conjunction with bibliometrics. The map identifies ten major 'clusters' of papers on oxytocin that differ in their particular research focus and that densely cite papers from the same cluster. We identify highly cited papers within each cluster and in each decade, not because citations are a good indicator of quality, but as a guide to recognising what questions were of wide interest at particular times. The clusters differ in their temporal profiles and bibliometric features; here, we attempt to understand the origins of these differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This quali‐quantitative study analysed the 100 most‐cited papers in core dental public health (DPH) journals focusing on understanding international knowledge production. Methods: The DPH journals were selected from titles and scopes at Web of Science Core Collection database up to March 2020. Further comparisons were performed at Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Some bibliometric parameters were extracted as follows: title, number of citations, citation density (number of citations per year), first author's country, year of publication, study design and subject. VOSviewer software was used to create graphical bibliometric maps. Results: Papers were ranked by the total number of citations, which ranged from 104 to 1,019, and six papers were cited more than 400 times. Papers were published from 1974 to 2013, mainly in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Most frequent study designs were cross‐sectional (30%) and nonsystematic review (25%). Most papers were from Europe (54%) and North America (31%). First authors were predominantly from the United Kingdom (17%), United States of America (17%) and Canada (14%). VOSviewer map of co‐authorship demonstrated the existence of clusters in the research collaboration. Although epidemiology was the most frequent subject (84%), health services research presented eight times higher citation density. Conclusions: Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals were predominantly observational studies from Anglo‐Saxon countries. Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals tend to be cross‐sectional studies carried out in the United States with highest citation in health services research. Locker D, Petersen PE and Sheiham A are a landmark for DPH field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Understanding the impact different journal articles have in any academic field is important – particularly in emerging professions. A bibliometric analysis like this does not yet exist for paramedicine, despite the rapid increase in its primary literature. The objective of the present study was to identify and analyse the 100 top‐cited articles about paramedicine. Methods: We searched the Scopus database in August 2020 for studies relating to paramedicine. After screening titles and abstracts, we extracted the citation count, journal name, publication year, and country of origin. We manually assessed whether the study was clinical or not, noted the sex of the authors, the profession of first and last authors and the study design used. Results: The median citation count for the top 100 papers in paramedicine was 58 (interquartile range 46–84 citations). The articles were published across 48 different journals, with Resuscitation and Prehospital Emergency Care being the two most frequent. The top‐cited paramedic papers originated from 16 different countries and were written predominantly by medical doctors. Three quarters (73%) of the studies had a clinical focus, and a quarter (26%) were randomised controlled trials. Conclusions: The evolution of paramedicine towards professionalism is backed up by the growth of its own body of knowledge. This analysis of the 100 most cited studies in paramedicine is the first of its kind and highlights that paramedicine articles have a high citation count and are published across numerous journals, but with a relative lack of contribution from paramedic practitioners and female researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the factors influencing the future citations of conference papers. We concentrated on the explanatory power of early attention on conference papers for citations collected from Google Scholar and Scopus. The early attention data includes users' online activities in a conference support system: CN3. Bookmarks from the bibliographic management system, Citeulike, were used as a collateral source of early attention. To examine the chronological contributions of 13 factors on citations, a multiple sequential regression analysis was conducted for three timepoints of the publication cycle—paper submission, time of conferences, and months after conferences. Our results illustrate that online readers' early attention of Citeulike bookmarks were found to have the most influence on the future impact of the conference papers. The early attention records from CN3 made noteworthy improvements to explaining both the Google and Scopus citations as well. We also found that the type of papers the number of papers presented at a conference, and the best article award records were significant factors influencing future citations. However, the magnitude of the effects made by online readers' early attention from both sources appears to be larger than these three traditional factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Users of research databases, such as CiteSeerX, Google Scholar, and Microsoft Academic, often search for papers using a set of keywords. Unfortunately, many authors avoid listing sufficient keywords for their papers. As such, these applications may need to automatically associate good descriptive keywords with papers. When the full text of the paper is available this problem has been thoroughly studied. In many cases, however, due to copyright limitations, research databases do not have access to the full text. On the other hand, such databases typically maintain metadata, such as the title and abstract and the citation network of each paper. In this paper we study the problem of predicting which keywords are appropriate for a research paper, using different methods based on the citation network and available metadata. Our main goal is in providing search engines with the ability to extract keywords from the available metadata. However, our system can also be used for other applications, such as for recommending keywords for the authors of new papers. We create a data set of research papers, and their citation network, keywords, and other metadata, containing over 470 K papers with and more than 2 million keywords. We compare our methods with predicting keywords using the title and abstract, in offline experiments and in a user study, concluding that the citation network provides much better predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the effect of publishing a data paper in the Open Access journal Data in Brief (DIB) on the citation counts of the related research paper. Using regression analysis, citation content analysis and a survey method, we investigate whether research papers with a related data paper have higher citation counts and the potential reasons. After controlling variables that correlate with the citation counts, research papers with a related data paper were found to have higher citation counts than those published in the same issue of the same journal. Next, we explored the causal relationship between the two variables by surveying the corresponding authors of 618 papers who shared datasets in DIB from 2014 to 2021. The results show that the authors acknowledge the benefits of sharing data in DIB, including citation increase and career reputation enhancement. We further explored how the data papers in DIB increase the citations of the related research papers by using citation content analysis. We found that scientists co‐cite the data papers and their related research papers for the purpose of reusing the underlying data or portraying a better understanding of the underlying data and related research articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore the citation evolution of papers published in the same year but different month, we selected papers from a discipline (physical geography), a subject (diabetes: endocrine and metabolism) and a journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) published in 2005 as research objects. These papers were divided into six groups according to the difference in publication month, and we analyzed citations to these papers for the 9 years after publication. The results showed that within 5 years after papers from physical geography were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); after that, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 5 years after papers from diabetes (endocrine and metabolism) were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 7 years after papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Citations of papers followed the same pattern irrespective of discipline, subject or journal: citations of papers published in the same year but different month were obviously different in the first few publishing years, but as time went on, only the difference in publication month in a calendar year did not affect the papers' longer-term citation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science ( WoS) subject category 'Information Science & Library Science.' In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compared to previous studies that generally detect scientific breakthroughs based on citation patterns, this article proposes a knowledge entity‐based disruption indicator by quantifying the change of knowledge directly created and inspired by scientific breakthroughs to their evolutionary trajectories. Two groups of analytic units, including MeSH terms and their co‐occurrences, are employed independently by the indicator to measure the change of knowledge. The effectiveness of the proposed indicators was evaluated against the four datasets of scientific breakthroughs derived from four recognition trials. In terms of identifying scientific breakthroughs, the proposed disruption indicator based on MeSH co‐occurrences outperforms that based on MeSH terms and three earlier citation‐based disruption indicators. It is also shown that in our indicator, measuring the change of knowledge inspired by the focal paper in its evolutionary trajectory is a larger contributor than measuring the change created by the focal paper. Our study not only offers empirical insights into conceptual understanding of scientific breakthroughs but also provides practical disruption indicator for scientists and science management agencies searching for valuable research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The most‐cited papers help to better understand important characteristics of this specific science field. Objective: To analyse the 100 most‐cited papers in the field of Paediatric Dentistry. Design: A search of the most‐cited papers in Paediatric Dentistry journals was performed using journals included in the category of 'Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine' in the Thompson Reuters Web of Science citation indexing database up to December 2018. Two researchers performed the data extraction, which included: number of citations, title, authors, country, year, journals, study design, and thematic area. Results: The number of citations of each paper included in the top 100 most‐cited ranged from 42 to 182 (mean: 64.51). Seven papers were cited more than 100 times. Most of the papers were published in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry (36%), between 2006 and 2015 (55%), with a cross‐sectional design (39%). Twenty‐six authors participated in two or more papers. The countries with the highest number of most‐cited papers were the United States (25%), Australia (11%), and Brazil (9%). Cariology was the most studied thematic area. Conclusion: The evaluation of the top 100 most‐cited papers in Paediatric Dentistry journals allowed for a better understanding of the world scenario regarding this research field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is essential for advancing scientific research, but there are long‐standing concerns that authors' prestige or other characteristics can bias reviewers. Double‐blind peer review has been proposed as a way to reduce reviewer bias, but the evidence for its effectiveness is limited and mixed. Here, we examine the effects of double‐blind peer review by analyzing the review files of 5,027 papers submitted to a top computer science conference that changed its reviewing format from single‐ to double‐blind in 2018. First, we find that the scores given to the most prestigious authors significantly decreased after switching to double‐blind review. However, because many of these papers were above the threshold for acceptance, the change did not affect paper acceptance significantly. Second, the inter‐reviewer disagreement increased significantly in the double‐blind format. Third, papers rejected in the single‐blind format are cited more than those rejected under double‐blind, suggesting that double‐blind review better excludes poorer quality papers. Lastly, an apparently unrelated change in the rating scale from 10 to 4 points likely reduced prestige bias significantly such that papers' acceptance was affected. These results support the effectiveness of double‐blind review in reducing biases, while opening new research directions on the impact of peer‐review formats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effectiveness of foreign aid in stimulating economic development is a topic of intense debate in the scientific community and among policy analysts. Numerous empirical studies are devoted to investigating the impact of foreign aid on the economic growth/development of recipient countries. This study reviews the literature relevant to this debate using the bibliometric data of scholarly papers in the Scopus database. Our intention is to identify the trends of publications, their geographical distribution and the most influential journals, authors and articles in this field of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study performs the first citation‐based systematic literature review of the tourism‐growth nexus. The citation analysis provides a bird's eye view of this literature, which, in turn, identifies the sources of knowledge in terms of most influential journals, authors, and articles. A detailed content analysis of 100 most influential papers has been generated on the nature of the study, variables used, country of analysis, type of analysis, the methodology, and the direction of causality. In total, 284 papers were found relevant in the Scopus database using a comprehensive list of keywords. The citation analysis reveals that Tourism Management is the leading journal with a total of 2527 citation counts, whereas Tourism Economics is the leading journal with a total of 41 publications on this topic. Juan Gabriel Brida is the most prolific author, whereas Lee and Chang (2008) is recognized as the most influential paper. The content analysis reveals that 58% have applied time series, and 38% have used panel data analysis. Tourism causing growth is the leading result of both time‐series and panel studies. International tourism receipts/earnings/expenditure and the number of international tourist arrivals are the most widely used variables to measure tourism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific progress is driven by important, infrequent discoveries that cannot be readily identified and quantified, which makes research assessment very difficult. Bibliometric indicators of important discoveries have been formulated using an empirical approach, based on the mathematical properties of the high-citation tail of the citation distribution. To investigate the theoretical basis of such formulations this study compares the US/ European research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries. The research performance ratio in terms of papers was studied from the citation distributions in the fields of chemistry, physics, and biochemistry and molecular biology. It varied as a function of the citation level. Selecting an appropriate high citation level, the ratios in terms of highly cited papers were compared with the corresponding ratios for Nobel Prize-winning discoveries in Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine. Research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries are reasonably similar, and suggest that the research success of the United States is almost 3 times that of Europe. A similar conclusion was obtained using articles published in Nature and Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compares the 45 “Best Paper” award articles with nonaward articles published in the Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) to observe the differences in citations. The results show that, in most cases, the citations of the award articles are more numerous than the median, belonging to the Top‐50% stratum. Only 15.6% of the award articles have the status of being the most‐cited article of the year in which the article was published; 24.4% belong to the Top‐5% stratum of the publication year; 44.4% belong to the Top‐10% stratum of the publication year; and 73.3% belong to the Top‐25% stratum of the publication year. Surprisingly, from 2000 to 2012, none of the award articles made it to the Top‐10% stratum, apart from the year 2004; the least‐cited award article received only three citations during a 5‐year period. The results show a wide range of citations among the Best JASIST Papers. This study also observes that the number of articles changed little from 1969 to 1995 but grew rapidly from 1996 to 2012. Suggestions for possible ways to better meet the challenges of the journal's growth in size and scope in selecting award articles are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the relationship of collaboration among scientists and the citation impact of papers have been frequently investigated. Most of the studies show that the two variables are closely related: An increasing collaboration activity (measured in terms of number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries) is associated with an increased citation impact. However, it is not clear whether the increased citation impact is based on the higher quality of papers that profit from more than one scientist giving expert input or other (citation-specific) factors. Thus, the current study addresses this question by using two comprehensive data sets with publications (in the biomedical area) including quality assessments by experts (F1000Prime member scores) and citation data for the publications. The study is based on more than 15,000 papers. Robust regression models are used to investigate the relationship between number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries, respectively, and citation impact-controlling for the papers' quality (measured by F1000Prime expert ratings). The results point out that the effect of collaboration activities on impact is largely independent of the papers' quality. The citation advantage is apparently not quality related; citation-specific factors (e.g., self-citations) seem to be important here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A poorly chosen article title may make a paper difficult to discover or discourage readership when discovered, reducing an article's impact. Yet, it is unclear how the structure of a manuscript's title influences readership and impact. We used manuscript tracking data for all manuscripts submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from 2004 to 2013 and citation data for papers published in this journal from 1987 to 2011 to examine how title features changed and whether a manuscript's title structure was predictive of success during the manuscript review process and/or impact (citation) after publication. Titles of manuscripts submitted to Functional Ecology became marginally longer (after controlling for other variables), broader in focus (less frequent inclusion of genus and species names), and included more humor and subtitles over the period of the study. Papers with subtitles were less likely to be rejected by editors both pre- and post-peer review, although both effects were small and the presence of subtitles in published papers was not predictive of citations. Papers with specific names of study organisms in their titles fared poorly during editorial (but not peer) review and, if published, were less well cited than papers whose titles did not include specific names. Papers with intermediate length titles were more successful during editorial review, although the effect was small and title word count was not predictive of citations. No features of titles were predictive of reviewer willingness to review papers or the length of time a paper was in peer review. We conclude that titles have changed in structure over time, but features of title structure have only small or no relationship with success during editorial review and post-publication impact. The title feature that was most predictive of manuscript success: papers whose titles emphasize broader conceptual or comparative issues fare better both pre- and post-publication than do papers with organism-specific titles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite regularly being criticized, the Impact Factor (IF) remains a widely used journal analysis metric. In the Water Resources category of the Web of Science, a thorough investigation of the reliability of this metric is lacking. This study analyzed the citation records of the top 10 journals from 2002 through 2021 for the last two decades. Important to note, there are inconsistencies in the Web of Science database. Contradictory to many fields, few papers are uncited. However, the Simpson paradox applies. More specifically, on the one hand, the correlation between citations to papers 7 years post publication and 1 or 2 years post publication (which determine the IF) has increased, which supports this metric. On the other hand, many of the most highly cited papers at the time of the IF calculation are lowly cited 5 years afterward. Additionally, most currently very highly cited papers were relatively uncited when they were used in the IF calculation. This raises doubt about the usefulness of this metric. For a limited number of journals, papers from individual nations strongly influence the IF. Also, for a few journals, the IFs are strongly influenced by review papers, but leaving these out of the IF does change the top 3 and 10 of the rankings. The general conclusion is that IFs do contain some valuable information about the journals' citation impact, but that using them to rank journals is questionable practice. Plain Language Summary: Impact Factors (IFs) continue to be very frequently used to evaluate researchers' publication records. They are calculated in a very simplistic manner, and are essentially an attempt to summarize a very complicated issue (publication quality) into one single metric. This paper shows that care must be taken when applying this practice. Not only does the data set contain errors, there are a number of other reasons why these IFs are not reliable indicators of a journal's quality. Key Points: In many cases the calculation of the Impact Factor (IF) by the Web of Science is contradictory with their own dataAnother number of issues have been identified which raise doubt on the IF as a measure of journal qualityA number of recommendations for a better use of the literature databases have been made [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH) has ranked as a Quartile journal by Scopus, meaning that aside from being well ranked, it receives many submissions from all over the world and particularly from within Australia. Topics include the journal relies on good-quality reviews from volunteer reviewers, the important therefore for people who have agreed to review for the journal to understand review requirements and processes.

Exchange rate policy is regarded as a critical macroeconomic policy. Especially the misalignment of exchange rates is significantly impact on imported goods, particularly oil imports, which ultimately effect external and internal imbalances. This study conducts a systematic literature review on exchange rate misalignment, as well as an intriguing content analysis of the top 100 most cited articles. Further it identifies the most influential authors, papers and the journals in the field using citation analysis. The relevant articles are identified using the Scopus database. Three hundred and seventy‐two scholarly papers have been found relevant. The results of the content analysis show that the purchasing power parity is the most frequently used theoretical foundation, followed by the Behavioural Equilibrium Exchange Rate. Additionally, the analysis reveals that the authors primarily utilised time series data. The identification of essential and core journals is made through Bradford's Law. Schuh (American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56, 1974, 1) is a pioneering study that discussed the misalignment of exchange rates in the US agriculture sector. Valérie Mignon is the most prolific author in terms of both productivity and impact. The paper authored by O'Connell (Journal of International Economics, 44, 1998, 1) titled 'overvaluation of purchasing power parity', is recognised as the most influential paper in terms of average citations per year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we propose a framework for detecting topic evolutions in weighted citation networks. Citation networks are important in studying knowledge flows; however, citation network analysis has primarily focused on binary networks in which the individual citation influences of each cited paper in a citing paper are considered identical, even though not all cited papers have a significant influence on the cited publication. Accordingly, it is necessary to build and analyze a citation network comprising scholarly publications that notably impact one another, thus identifying topic evolution in a more precise manner. To measure the strength of citation influence and identify paper topics, we employ a citation influence topic model primarily based on topical inheritance between cited and citing papers. Using scholarly publications in the field of the protein p53 as a case study, we build a citation network, filter it using citation influence values, and examine the diffusion of topics not only in the field but also in the subfields of p53. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The BRICS countries ( Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Each section header of an article has its distinct communicative function. Citations from distinct sections may be different regarding citing motivation. In this paper, we grouped section headers with similar functions as a structural function and defined the distribution of citations from structural functions for a paper as its citation structure. We aim to explore the relationship between citation structure and the future impact of a publication and disclose the relative importance among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, we proposed two citation counting methods and a citation life cycle identification method, by which the regression data were built. Subsequently, we employed a ridge regression model to predict the future impact of the paper and analyzed the relative weights of regressors. Based on documents collected from the Association for Computational Linguistics Anthology website, our empirical experiments disclosed that functional structure features improve the prediction accuracy of citation count prediction and that there exist differences among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, at the early stage of citation lifetime, citations from Introduction and Method are particularly important for perceiving future impact of papers, and citations from Result and Conclusion are also vital. However, early accumulation of citations from the Background seems less important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess whether a correlation exists between newsworthiness (Altmetric score) and scientific impact markers, such as citation analysis, impact factors, and levels of evidence. Methods The top five most cited articles for the year 2014 and 2015 from the top 10 ranking urology journals (Scientific Impact Group) were identified. The top 50 articles each in 2014 and 2015 were identified from Altmetric support based on media activity (Media Impact Group). We determined the number of citations that these articles received in the scientific literature, and calculated correlations between citations with Altmetric scores. Results In the Scientific Impact Group, the mean number of citations per article was 37.6, and the most highly cited articles were oncology guidelines. The mean Altmetric score in these articles was 14.8. There was a weak positive correlation between citations and Altmetric score ( r s = 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.52, P < 0.001). In the Media Impact Group, the mean Altmetric score was 121.1 and most widely shared articles all related to sexual medicine. In this group, the mean number of citations was 9.7 and there was a weak negative correlation between Altmetric score and citations ( rs = −0.20, P = 0.046). Conclusion The top articles based on Altmetric scores were not highly cited, suggesting that publications receiving the most media attention may not be the most scientifically rigorous, or that this audience places greater value on different subjects than the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To describe the use of bibliometrics in nursing and assess their contribution to research and practice. Design: A content analysis was conducted of topics, data sources and applications of bibliometrics in nursing research articles. Methods: The study universe included 129 bibliometric articles on nursing retrieved from Scopus. A content analysis was performed to identify the purposes and topics of the articles, the sources employed to collect the data, the time frames covered, the amounts of records surveyed, and the features of the nursing literature analysed in bibliometric papers. Results: Nursing bibliometric research revolves around six key areas: global descriptions of the nursing literature, literature on specific nursing research topics, nursing education, nursing profession, nursing research using a certain framework or method, and nursing literature published in a country or region. Studies rely on three types of sources to retrieve the surveyed literature: bibliographic databases, sets of disciplinary journals and samples of documents. Bibliometrics can be employed to advance nursing research (identification of research gaps, establishment of research agendas, assessment of methodological approaches, etc.) and practice (identification of professional competences, categorisation of professional tasks, recognition of educational improvements, etc.), suggesting new avenues for researchers who aim to conduct further bibliometric research in the field. Further research is needed to assess the coverage of the nursing literature by new bibliographic data sources and to explore unaddressed topics such as gender imbalance in authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of which type of computer science (CS) publication-0conference or journal-0is likely to result in more citations for a published paper is addressed. A series of data sets are examined and joined in order to analyze the citations of over 195,000 conference papers and 108,000 journal papers. Two means of evaluating the citations of journals and conferences are explored: h5 and average citations per paper; it was found that h5 has certain biases that make it a difficult measure to use (despite it being the main measure used by Google Scholar). Results from the analysis show that CS, as a discipline, values conferences as a publication venue more highly than any other academic field of study. The analysis also shows that a small number of elite CS conferences have the highest average paper citation rate of any publication type, although overall, citation rates in conferences are no higher than in journals. It is also shown that the length of a paper is correlated with citation rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers need maps to effectively navigate increasingly voluminous literatures. This is no less the case in the field of problem structuring methods (PSMs). This paper offers an atlas of the journal literature of the theoretical development of, what are currently acknowledged to be, the four main PSMs up to their consolidation in 1989. A thorough contextual appreciation of the structure and dynamics of this literature sets the stage for addressing some of its specific aspects, for which an atlas is especially effective as an orientation device. Substantiated suggestions for exploratory excursions, as well as potential pitfalls, are accentuated, the overall aim being to provide researchers with navigational support that may assist their research objectives. Based on evidence uncovered from the atlas, a number of issues current in the PSM field are discussed, including the use of the collective descriptor 'family', the extent to which PSMs find their origins, and belong, in the wider field of operational research and the identification of sources that have hitherto received little or no acknowledgment but which merit attention as precursors and promising contributors to PSM research. The paper is accompanied by an electronic supplement containing the basic data of the atlas from which additional maps may be designed and constructed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]