Search

Over the past 30 years, several reviews have examined scholarly contributions of individual researchers and institutions in the field of educational psychology (Fong et al., Educational Psychology Review 34:2379–2403, 2022; Greenbaum et al., Educational Psychology Review 28:215–223, 2016; Hsieh et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 29:333–343, 2004; Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 35:11–16, 2010; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:173–181, 1998; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 28:422–430, 2003). However, no reviews have specifically examined scholarly impact as measured by citations since (Walberg, Current Contents 22:5–14, 1990) did so over 34 years ago. The present review focused on the period from 1988 to 2023, identifying the most cited articles and authors since Walberg's study that focused on the period from 1966–1988. Whereas most of the previous reviews have been limited in terms of brief time periods (e.g., six years) and a small set of journals (e.g., five), our scope included 12 educational psychology journals across 36 years. The most cited article (over 9000 times) by (Ryan and Deci, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67, 2000) had more than twice as many citations as the second most cited article by (Pintrich and Groot, Journal of Educational Psychology 82:33–40, 1990). Most of the top 30 most cited articles, including four of the top five, addressed the topic of motivation. With regard to highly cited authors, the top five were John Sweller, Richard E. Mayer, Fred Paas, Richard M. Ryan, and Reinhard Pekrun. Several of the 30 most cited authors have never appeared in previous lists of most productive authors. Finally, keyword and cluster analyses revealed most popular topics and collaborative networks among many of the most cited authors that may partly explain their productivity. Examining article and author impact is an important complement to productivity when considering scholarly contributions to the field of educational psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent literature has demonstrated the associations between social media attention, as measured by altmetric attention score (AAS), and higher citation rates across medical disciplines. Despite increasing use of AAS, an understanding of factors associated with higher AAS and social media attention remains lacking. Furthermore, if this increased attention correlates with a higher methodological quality and lower biases has not been determined. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to determine the relationship between methodological quality, study biases and the AAS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All RCTs from 2016 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Society (JAMA), and Lancet were extracted and the (1) AAS; (2) Methodological Bias (JADAD Scale); Study Bias (Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for RCTs) recorded. A total of 296 RCTs with a median (range) AAS and citation rate per article of 234.0(7–4079) and 165.0(4–3257), respectively, were included. The AAS was positively associated with citation rate (β 0.19, 95% CI 0.10–0.29; P < 0.001). Methodological bias was not associated with the AAS (β − 36.3, 95% CI − 83.5–10.9; P = 0.131), but was negatively associated with higher citation rates (β − 66.4, 95% CI − 106.0 to − 26.9; P = 0.001). The number of study biases was not associated with the AAS (β 43.7, 95% CI − 6.3–93.7;P = 0.086), but was positively associated with a higher citation rate (β 64.5, 95% CI 22.4–106.6; P = 0.003). The online attention of RCTs in medical journals was not necessarily reflective of high methodological quality and minimal study biases, but was associated with higher citation rates. Researchers and clinicians should critically examine each article despite the amount of online attention an article receives as the AAS does not necessarily reflect article quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this exploratory study, we develop models of factors that influence the citation or influence of judicial opinions written by U.S. Courts of Appeals judges. Prior studies of citation patterns in the U.S. Courts of Appeals largely focus on the judge's career as the unit of analysis. Not surprisingly, this research suggests judge-level factors tend to influence the degree to which judges' opinions are cited in subsequent decisions. Utilizing a dataset with a random sample of individual cases as the unit of analysis, we compare the effects of judge, panel, and case factors. Overall, while several case-level factors influence the number of citations a case receives, few judge- and panel-level variables affect citation rates. The findings suggest that opinion citation models based on judge- and/or panel-level attributes alone miss the influence of case attributes on citation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ratio of the total number of citations to the total number of cited papers was called “Garfield’s Constant” in some of the earlier works of Eugene Garfield. Later, he himself realized that the ratio is changing over time, but still was confident that behind this ratio some deeper regularity may be found. In the present paper a systematic analysis of this indicator, the Garfield Ratio is attempted. Its application in journal-level analysis is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is an integral part of science. Devised to ensure and enhance the quality of scientific work, it is a crucial step that influences the publication of papers, the provision of grants and, as a consequence, the career of scientists. In order to meet the challenges of this responsibility, a certain shared understanding of scientific quality seems necessary. Yet previous studies have shown that inter-rater reliability in peer reviews is relatively low. However, most of these studies did not take ill-structured measurement design of the data into account. Moreover, no prior (quantitative) study has analyzed inter-rater reliability in an interdisciplinary field. And finally, issues of validity have hardly ever been addressed. Therefore, the three major research goals of this paper are (1) to analyze inter-rater agreement of different rating dimensions (e.g., relevance and soundness) in an interdisciplinary field, (2) to account for ill-structured designs by applying state-of-the-art methods, and (3) to examine the construct and criterion validity of reviewers' evaluations. A total of 443 reviews were analyzed. These reviews were provided by m = 130 reviewers for n = 145 submissions to an interdisciplinary conference. Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for improvement of scientific peer review. Inter-rater reliability was rather poor and there were no significant differences between evaluations from reviewers of the same scientific discipline as the papers they were reviewing versus reviewer evaluations of papers from disciplines other than their own. These findings extend beyond those of prior research. Furthermore, convergent and discriminant construct validity of the rating dimensions were low as well. Nevertheless, a multidimensional model yielded a better fit than a unidimensional model. Our study also shows that the citation rate of accepted papers was positively associated with the relevance ratings made by reviewers from the same discipline as the paper they were reviewing. In addition, high novelty ratings from same-discipline reviewers were negatively associated with citation rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of bibliometric studies point out that the role of conference publications in computer science differs from that in other traditional fields. Thus, it is interesting to identify the relative status of journal and conference publications in different subfields of computer science based on the citation rates categorised by the China Computer Federation (CCF) classifications and venue types. In this research, we construct a dataset containing over 100,000 papers recommended by the CCF catalogue and their citation information. We also investigate some other factors that often influence a paper's citation rate. An experimental study shows that the relative status of journals and conferences varies greatly in different subfields of computer science, and the impact of different publication levels varies according to the citation rate. We also verify that the classification of a publication, number of authors, maximum h-index of all authors of a paper, and average number of papers published by a publication have different effects on the citation rate, although the citation rate may have a different degree of correlation with these factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study sought to examine the trend and impact of international collaboration in scientific research in Vietnam during the period after the introduction of the a reform policy and the normalization of relations with the United States. Using the Thomson Reuters' Web of Science data (2001-2015) we found that 77% of Vietnam's scientific output ( n = 18,044 papers) involved international collaborations, with the United States and Japan researchers being the most frequent partners. The proportion of international collaborations has decreased slightly over time at the expense of an increased rate of domestic collaborations. The rate of growth in Vietnam's scientific output was 17% per annum, and three-quarters of the growth was associated with international collaborations rather than purely domestic production. Moreover, internationally coauthored papers received twice the average citation as domestic papers. Of note, papers with overseas corresponding author had higher citation rate than papers with domestic corresponding author. These data suggest that the vast majority of scientific papers from Vietnam was attributable to international collaboration, and this had a positive impact on the quality and visibility of Vietnam science. The data also indicate that Vietnam is in the growth phase of building up research capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A citation analysis was completed on articles published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology over the period of 1966-2009. Articles were grouped into 5 year intervals and the top 50 most-cited papers in each year interval were categorized according to research theme. Over the journal's history, articles in the toxicity research theme dominated top-cited articles published by the journal followed by articles in the environmental concentration theme and the mechanistic theme. The geographic area of submission of top-cited articles has shown large changes with time, initially being dominated by papers from North American and now dominated by papers from Asia. An examination of the citation history for the highest cited paper in each year interval indicated that the average time to achieve 90 % of total citations is 25 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topic “cruciate ligament” is of increasing interest due to improved diagnostic methods and the necessity to cure “modern” leisure time sports injuries. Publications have increased strongly since the 1990s. In this respect, it is difficult for a scientist to obtain an overview of a topic he/she is interested in. Scientometrics is a relatively new method to evaluate research efforts, to detect single areas of interest and to quantify the scientific impact of publications according to a particular topic. By comparing quantitative (i.e. number of published items) and qualitative factors (i.e. h-index, Impact-Factor or Citation rate), it is possible to evaluate this analysis methodically. In the period 1903–2007, a number of 9,806 published items were included in the ISI-Web referring to “cruciate ligament”. The publications were published by 59 countries demonstrating the USA, Germany and the UK as the most productive ones. The “ American Journal of Sports Medicine” was determined to be the most prolific journal and “WOO, SLY” as the most prolific author dealing with “cruciate ligament”. The USA, Sweden, Finland and Norway take a leading position in citation per item rankings. In this respect, further analysis of the citations revealed the tendency of a disproportional high self-citation rate for some countries (e.g. Sweden, Finland). Self-citations lead to high average citations rates and distort further qualitative parameters (i.e. Impact-Factor, h-index). In this respect, the value of these parameters should be considered from a critical point of view. Furthermore, it might be useful to establish parameters which limit co-authorship and exclude self-citations to obtain more sustainable results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of HNO is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)