High-Ranked Social Science Journal Articles Can Be Identified from Early Citation Information

Do citations accumulate too slowly in the social sciences to be used to assess the quality of recent articles? I investigate whether this is the case using citation data for all articles in economics and political science published in 2006 and indexed in the Web of Science. I find that citations in the first two years after publication explain more than half of the variation in cumulative citations received over a longer period. Journal impact factors improve the correlation between the predicted and actual future ranks of journal articles when using citation data from 2006 alone but the effect declines sharply thereafter. Finally, more than half of the papers in the top 20% in 2012 were already in the top 20% in the year of publication (2006).     

Impact analysis of a regional scientific journal (1980-2000): supporting promising local researchers pays the greatest dividends

During the past 28 years, the journal "Collegium Antropologicum" has continuously served as one of the main disseminators of anthropological scientific production in Central and Eastern Europe. The journal was committed to its role of a multidisciplinary platform for presenting wide range of research topics relevant to anthropology, from investigations within social and cultural anthropology and archaeology to those covering contemporary population genetics, human evolution and biomedical issues. Two key strategies aimed at sustaining and increasing the impact of this journal were oriented towards: (i) identification of promising local groups of researchers who were at disadvantage by many aspects (e.g. educational curricula, financial supports, language barriers etc.) when trying to publish their research internationally, and (ii) invitation and encouragement of already established international scientists to make contributions for "Collegium Antropologicum". From 1980-2000, 89 articles (or 6.3% of all published papers during that period) were cited 6 or more times, contributing disproportionately to journal's impact (nearly a third of all citations received). In an attempt to identify such papers more readily among the submissions to the journal in the future, we analyzed research topics and affiliations of the authors among the 89 papers receiving most citations in comparison to all papers published. Among the papers most frequently cited, we found greater-than-expected prevalence of Croatian researchers (especially when publishing in collaboration with international scientists) and studies of special populations. Several papers received more than 25 citations or had overall citation intensity greater than 2 per year. This implies that an interesting article from a local group of researchers can still resonate with international audience although published in a regional journal. Present analysis supports current editorial strategy that with a help of the international consulting editorial board continuously improves international recognition of this journal. The results imply that a balanced encouragement to promising local groups of researchers and to contributions of already established international scientists is a strategy superior to others in maintaining and increasing the impact of this regional journal.     

Content Factor: A Measure of a Journal's Contribution to Knowledge

Impact Factor, the pre-eminent performance metric for medical journals, has been criticized for failing to capture the true impact of articles; for favoring methodology papers; for being unduly influenced by statistical outliers; and for examining a period of time too short to capture an article's long-term importance. Also, in the era of search engines, where readers need not skim through journals to find information, Impact Factor's emphasis on citation efficiency may be misplaced. A better metric would consider the total number of citations to all papers published by the journal (not just the recent ones), and would not be decremented by the total number of papers published. We propose a metric embodying these principles, "Content Factor", and examine its performance among leading medical and orthopaedic surgery journals. To remedy Impact Factor's emphasis on recent citations, Content Factor considers the total number of citations, regardless of the year in which the cited paper was published. To correct for Impact Factor's emphasis on efficiency, no denominator is employed. Content Factor is thus the total number of citations in a given year to all of the papers previously published in the journal. We found that Content Factor and Impact Factor are poorly correlated. We further surveyed 75 experienced orthopaedic authors and measured their perceptions of the "importance" of various orthopaedic surgery journals. The correlation between the importance score and the Impact Factor was only 0.08; the correlation between the importance score and Content Factor was 0.56. Accordingly, Content Factor better reflects a journal's "importance". In sum, while Content Factor cannot be defended as the lone metric of merit, to the extent that performance data informs journal evaluations, Content Factor- an easily obtained and intuitively appealing metric of the journal's knowledge contribution, not subject to gaming- can be a useful adjunct.     

Animal Experimentation in Cancer Research: A Citation Analysis

Cancer research involves the use of millions of nonhuman animals and billions of dollars in public funds each year, but cures for the disease remain elusive. This article suggests ways to reduce the use of animals and save money by identifying articles that garnered few citations over the 9 years after they were published. I obtained the citations received by 786 articles in 9 general cancer journals published in 1990 and the number of animals used (where possible) in the 220 animal-based research articles. By calculating the ratio of animal number to citation number, I identified the most effective (those with many citations and few animals used) and the least effective (those with many animals and few citations) articles. Using these ratios, I compared the effectiveness of their experiments/articles for the 9 journals, author affiliations and nationalities, and funding sources. This article recommends ways in which experiments with little chance of being influential can be avoided, thus freeing resources for more worthwhile assaults on cancer.     

An audit of the BMJ's correspondence columns.

OBJECTIVE--To see whether some sections of the BMJ attract more comment than others, whether letters submitted in response to different sections of the journal are rejected at different rates, and whether the balance between letters that agree and disagree with articles in the published correspondence reflects that in submitted letters. DESIGN--Retrospective audit of letters submitted for publication in the correspondence columns of the BMJ in response to articles published between 1 January and 21 May 1989. SUBJECTS--A total of 1319 letters received by the journal, 974 submitted in response to the 1501 published articles and a further 345 raising new issues. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--The total numbers of letters submitted in response to the four main sections of the journal--editorials, news, papers, and middles--and the numbers published. Submitted and published letters were analysed according to whether they agreed or disagreed with articles. RESULTS--The overall rejection rate was 63% (831/1319), but among letters relating to articles it was 56% (543/974). Editorials and middles attracted proportionately more letters than papers, but letters relating to papers had a lower rejection rate (43% v 57% for editorials and 43% v 66% for middles). For all sections more letters disagreed than agreed, but a higher proportion of letters in response to editorials and middles disagreed than those submitted in response to papers (64% and 72% v 53%). Among the published letters, however, broadly equal numbers of letters agreed and disagreed with articles, irrespective of section. CONCLUSION--Those sections of the journal that aim at stimulating debate succeeded in attracting the most comment. The relative importance of original scientific research papers was reflected by the priority given to letters submitted in response to papers, and the final correspondence column was a balanced platform of debate despite an unequal submitted response in terms of letters that agreed and disagreed with different sections of the journal.     

A Scoping Review of Published Research on the Relinquishment of Companion Animals

Globally, large populations of companion animals are relinquished each year. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify all published research investigating companion-animal relinquishment to map out and evaluate research gaps, needs, and opportunities. A comprehensive search strategy was implemented in 4 online databases, identified citations were screened, and relevant articles were procured and characterized. From 6,848 unique citations identified, 192 were confirmed relevant, including 115 primary-research articles and 77 reviews and commentaries. The majority of these articles originated from the United States (131; 68.2%); 74 (38.5%) of them have been published since 2006. Among the primary-research articles, 84 (73.0%) investigated reasons for companion-animal relinquishment. The most commonly studied reasons were aggressive companion-animal behaviors (49; 58.3%); moving, rental, or housing issues (45; 53.6%); and caretaker personal issues (42; 50.0%). Only 17 primary-research articles investigated interventions to prevent companion-animal relinquishment. The quantity of research into reasons for relinquishment highlights an opportunity for future knowledge-synthesis activities in this area, including systematic review and meta-analysis. In comparison, the limited research into interventions identifies a priority for new research.     

Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns

A number of new metrics based on social media platforms—grouped under the term “altmetrics”—have recently been introduced as potential indicators of research impact. Despite their current popularity, there is a lack of information regarding the determinants of these metrics. Using publication and citation data from 1.3 million papers published in 2012 and covered in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science as well as social media counts from Altmetric.com, this paper analyses the main patterns of five social media metrics as a function of document characteristics (i.e., discipline, document type, title length, number of pages and references) and collaborative practices and compares them to patterns known for citations. Results show that the presence of papers on social media is low, with 21.5% of papers receiving at least one tweet, 4.7% being shared on Facebook, 1.9% mentioned on blogs, 0.8% found on Google+ and 0.7% discussed in mainstream media. By contrast, 66.8% of papers have received at least one citation. Our findings show that both citations and social media metrics increase with the extent of collaboration and the length of the references list. On the other hand, while editorials and news items are seldom cited, it is these types of document that are the most popular on Twitter. Similarly, while longer papers typically attract more citations, an opposite trend is seen on social media platforms. Finally, contrary to what is observed for citations, it is papers in the Social Sciences and humanities that are the most often found on social media platforms. On the whole, these findings suggest that factors driving social media and citations are different. Therefore, social media metrics cannot actually be seen as alternatives to citations; at most, they may function as complements to other type of indicators.     

Predicting Scholars' Scientific Impact

We tested the underlying assumption that citation counts are reliable predictors of future success, analyzing complete citation data on the careers of scientists. Our results show that i) among all citation indicators, the annual citations at the time of prediction is the best predictor of future citations, ii) future citations of a scientist''s published papers can be predicted accurately ( for a 1-year prediction, ) but iii) future citations of future work are hardly predictable.     

Contribution of case reports to brain metastases research: systematic review and analysis of pattern of citation

Research activity related to different aspects of prevention, prediction, diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases has increased during recent years. One of the major databases (Scopus) contains 942 scientific articles that were published during the 5-year time period 2006–2010. Of these, 195 (21%) reported on single patient cases and 12 (1%) were reports of 2 cases. Little is known about their influence on advancement of the field or scientific merits. Do brain metastases case reports attract attention and provide stimuli for further research or do they go largely unrecognized? Different measures of impact, visibility and quality of published research are available, each with its own pros and cons. For the present evaluation, article citation rate was chosen. The median number of citations overall and stratified by year of publication was 0, except for the year 2006 when it was 2. As compared to other articles, case reports remained more often without citation (p<0.05 except for 2006 data). All case reports with 10 or more citations (n = 6) reported on newly introduced anticancer drugs, which commonly are prescribed to treat extracranial metastases, and the responses observed in single patients with brain metastases. Average annual numbers of citations were also calculated. The articles with most citations per year were the same six case reports mentioned above (the only ones that obtained more than 2.0 citations per year). Citations appeared to gradually increase during the first two years after publication but remained on a generally low or modest level. It cannot be excluded that case reports without citation provide interesting information to some clinicians or researchers. Apparently, case reports describing unexpected therapeutic success gain more attention, at least in terms of citation, than others.     

Citation Classics in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Who Wrote the Top 100 Most Cited Articles?

Background

Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. The aims of this study were to assess whether citation classics exist in published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM), examine the characteristics of the most frequently cited SRM articles, and evaluate the contribution of different world regions.

Methods

The 100 most cited SRM were identified in October 2012 using the Science Citation Index database of the Institute for Scientific Information. Data were extracted by one author. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the association between years since publication, numbers of authors, article length, journal impact factor, and average citations per year.

Results

Among the 100 citation classics, published between 1977 and 2008, the most cited article received 7308 citations and the least-cited 675 citations. The average citations per year ranged from 27.8 to 401.6. First authors from the USA produced the highest number of citation classics (n=46), followed by the UK (n=28) and Canada (n=15). The 100 articles were published in 42 journals led by the Journal of the American Medical Association (n=18), followed by the British Medical Journal (n=14) and The Lancet (n=13). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between number of authors (Spearman’s rho=0.320, p=0.001), journal impact factor (rho=0.240, p=0.016) and average citations per year. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between average citations per year and year since publication (rho = -0.636, p=0.0001). The most cited papers identified seminal contributions and originators of landmark methodological aspects of SRM and reflect major advances in the management of and predisposing factors for chronic diseases.

Conclusions

Since the late 1970s, the USA, UK, and Canada have taken leadership in the production of citation classic papers. No first author from low or middle-income countries (LMIC) led one of the most cited 100 SRM.     

Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines

Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011–2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists.     

基于CSCD的盐生植物研究文献计量评价

以中国科学引文数据库（CSCD,477篇）为主线,以维普、万方和CNKI数据库（3329篇）为基础数据,采用文献计量分析的方法,对盐生植物研究文献进行统计分析,分别从文献的年代、机构、作者、来源期刊、学科类别、高被引论文和文献的关键词这7个方面,对盐生植物研究文献的分布规律和研究现状进行总体回顾与评价。全面概括、总结和分析该研究领域研究热点、区域、内容、技术和方法,优秀人才、领先机构和主要团队,揭示中国盐生植物研究的进展情况。结果表明：1956年有盐生植物论文发表,2007年文献总量340篇为最高记录;在CSCD,1991年有盐生植物论文发表,至2011年62篇为最高,均呈逐年上升趋势。中国在盐生植物研究方面已经形成了引领该研究方向的4个主要科研团队,分别是山东师范大学、中国科学院新疆生态与地理研究所、中国农业大学和南京大学。盐生植物的研究呈现明显的地域相关性,热点地区包括新疆、山东、北京、南京、东北、内蒙古、宁夏、兰州等地。盐生植物研究热点是：耐盐性（耐盐机制）、盐胁迫、盐碱地、基因克隆、土壤盐分、植物生长、开发利用、渗透调节、生理指标、种子萌发、脯氨酸、基因工程（基因表达）和植物群落等。     

Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers'' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists'' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.     

Open Access Meets Discoverability: Citations to Articles Posted to Academia.edu

Using matching and regression analyses, we measure the difference in citations between articles posted to Academia.edu and other articles from similar journals, controlling for field, impact factor, and other variables. Based on a sample size of 31,216 papers, we find that a paper in a median impact factor journal uploaded to Academia.edu receives 16% more citations after one year than a similar article not available online, 51% more citations after three years, and 69% after five years. We also found that articles also posted to Academia.edu had 58% more citations than articles only posted to other online venues, such as personal and departmental home pages, after five years.     

The influence of “Homage to Santa Rosalia” on aquatic ecology: a scientometric approach

In 1959, G.E. Hutchinson provided a general explanation for the diversity of species in his paper “Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals?” To assess the contribution of the ideas Hutchinson introduced in “The Homage” to aquatic ecology research, we performed a bibliometric evaluation of all the articles that cited this paper between 1960 and 2009. The articles were retrieved using the database from Thomson Reuters (ISI Web of Knowledge) in March 2009. For each paper, we first identified the studied environment (terrestrial, marine or freshwater) and whether the study was theoretical or empirical. For marine and freshwater studies, we recorded the journal where the article was published, the year of publication, the number of citations, the taxonomic group (e.g. fish, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates or macrophytes), the habitat (e.g. wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams or ocean) and the main ideas addressed. A total of 1345 articles cited “The Homage”, and the number of citations increased significantly with time. Most of the articles that cited “The Homage” described research carried out in a terrestrial environment or were theoretical, and a lesser number of citations came from freshwater and marine papers, which used mainly fish and invertebrates as model organisms. In the aquatic sciences, most of the papers discussed the influences of competition and energy (productivity) on diversity. Our results indicate that “The Homage” can still be considered a “citation classic” and a breakthrough contribution, and that it is still having a great impact on different fields of ecology, including limnology and marine ecology.     

Geographic origin of journal articles on nonhuman primates

During the 1970s variations in the number of citations published in CURRENT PRIMATE REFERENCES seemed to parallel changes in the fortunes of primate research in the United States. In 1981 and 1982, however, the trends diverged, with the number of citations increasing 25% over the two years. In an effort to identify more specifically some factors underlying the trend in literature growth, citations of journal articles appearing in 1971, 1976, and 1981 issues were tabulated according to the general subject indicated by the title and the site of research indicated by the author's address. The number of journal articles was 20% larger in 1981 than in 1971. The United States was the largest contributor in all three years, but its relative contribution declined. Continental Western Europe ranked second consistently, and its contribution grew at an above-average rate. Japan ranked fifth in 1971 and third in 1981. India contributed less than 2% of the literature in 1971 and more than 3% in 1981, as a result of a doubling of its contribution. The subject composition of the literature did not change greatly.     

全球北极底栖生物研究文献计量分析

以Thomson Reuters的Web of Science信息平台提供的SCI-E数据库为数据源,检索到从1991年至2012年期间全球北极底栖生物研究论文2127篇,利用Note Express软件,分析22年间论文发表的年度、国家、机构、作者、期刊和学科等方面的分布特征,结果表明:1)全球北极底栖生物研究论文数量、篇均作者数和篇均参考文献数都在逐年增加;2)研究论文涉及58个国家或地区,位于前7位的国家依次是美国、德国、加拿大、挪威、俄罗斯、英国和丹麦;美国、加拿大、挪威和丹麦是该领域国际合作研究最主要的国家;3)论文涉及1364个机构,前20名的研究机构中,美国有6家,德国、加拿大和挪威各有3家,俄罗斯和丹麦各有2家,波兰有1家。俄罗斯、丹麦、波兰、德国和挪威超过60%的研究力量集中在位列前20位的相关机构中。俄罗斯科学院论文总量排列首位,德国阿尔弗雷德魏格纳极地与海洋研究中心和基尔大学论文的h指数最高为32;4)论文涉及最多的4个学科是海洋与淡水生物学、生态学、海洋学和多学科地球科学。Polar Biology和Marine Ecology Progress Series是发表该领域最核心的期刊。还对中国在该领域的研究现状进行了简要的分析。从文献计量学角度揭示了全球北极底栖生物研究现状,为提升我国该领域研究的国际竞争力提供科学参考。     

Scientific publications on primary biliary cirrhosis from 2000 through 2010: an 11-year survey of the literature

Background

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic liver disease characterized by intrahepatic bile-duct destruction, cholestasis, and fibrosis. It can lead to cirrhosis and eventually liver failure. PBC also shows some regional differences with respect to incidence and prevalence that are becoming more pronounced each year. Recently, researchers have paid more attention to PBC. To evaluate the development of PBC research during the past 11 years, we determined the quantity and quality of articles on this subject. We also compared the contributions of scientists from the US, UK, Japan, Italy, Germany, and China.

Methods

The English-language papers covering PBC published in journals from 2000 through 2010 were retrieved from the PubMed database. We recorded the number of papers published each year, analyzed the publication type, and calculated the accumulated, average impact factors (IFs) and citations from every country. The quantity and quality of articles on PBC were compared by country. We also contrasted the level of PBC research in China and other countries.

Results

The total number of articles did not significantly increase during the past 11 years. The number of articles from the US exceeded those from any other country; the publications from the US also had the highest IFs and the most citations. Four other countries showed complex trends with respect to the quantity and quality of articles about PBC.

Conclusion

The researchers from the US have contributed the most to the development of PBC research. They currently represent the highest level of research. Some high-level studies, such as RCTs, meta-analyses, and in-depth basic studies should be launched. The gap between China and the advanced level is still enormous. Chinese investigators still have a long way to go.