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).     

How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads,Twitter Mentions,and Citations

We analyze the online response to the preprint publication of a cohort of 4,606 scientific articles submitted to the preprint database arXiv.org between October 2010 and May 2011. We study three forms of responses to these preprints: downloads on the arXiv.org site, mentions on the social media site Twitter, and early citations in the scholarly record. We perform two analyses. First, we analyze the delay and time span of article downloads and Twitter mentions following submission, to understand the temporal configuration of these reactions and whether one precedes or follows the other. Second, we run regression and correlation tests to investigate the relationship between Twitter mentions, arXiv downloads, and article citations. We find that Twitter mentions and arXiv downloads of scholarly articles follow two distinct temporal patterns of activity, with Twitter mentions having shorter delays and narrower time spans than arXiv downloads. We also find that the volume of Twitter mentions is statistically correlated with arXiv downloads and early citations just months after the publication of a preprint, with a possible bias that favors highly mentioned articles.     

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.     

Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors

Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal’s impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal’s impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article’s online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.     

Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites—Where and Who Are They?

The use of academic profiling sites is becoming more common, and emerging technologies boost researchers’ visibility and exchange of ideas. In our study we compared profiles at five different profiling sites. These five sites are ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID and ORCID. The data set is enriched by demographic information including age, gender, position and affiliation, which are provided by the national CRIS-system in Norway. We find that approximately 37% of researchers at the University of Bergen have at least one profile, the prevalence being highest (> 40%) for members at the Faculty of Psychology and the Faculty of Social Sciences. Across all disciplines, ResearchGate is the most widely used platform. However, within Faculty of Humanities, Academia.edu is the preferred one. Researchers are reluctant to maintain multiple profiles, and there is little overlap between different services. Age turns out to be a poor indicator for presence in the investigated profiling sites, women are underrepresented and professors together with PhD students are the most likely profile holders. We next investigated the correlation between bibliometric measures, such as publications and citations, and user activities, such as downloads and followers. We find different bibliometric indicators to correlate strongly within individual platforms and across platforms. There is however less agreement between the traditional bibliometric and social activity indicators.     

Two-year citations of JAPPL original articles: evidence of a relative age effect

Several indicators have been used to analyze scientific journals, with the impact factor and the number of citations in a 2-yr calendar time frame (2-YRC) being the most common factors. However, considering that the Journal of Applied Physiology (JAPPL) appears monthly and that calculations of these indicators are based on citations of papers published in previous years, we hypothesized that articles published at the beginning of the year would be cited more in the 2-YRC compared with those appearing in the last issues of the year, a phenomena known as a relative age effect. Our objective was to confirm the existence of a relative age effect in the 2-YRC for original articles published in JAPPL. From 2005 to 2008, a total of 1,726 original articles were published, according to the Web of Science, and 9,973 citations in 2-YRC, varying from 0 to 45, with a mean of 5.78 for individual papers. Although there were no differences in the number of original articles published in a given month (P = 0.99), the 2-YRC varied considerably throughout the year, being higher for those earlier issues of the year, as shown by the linear regression analysis (r(2) = 0.76; P < 0.001). The 2-YRC began at 6.62 during the first 3 mo of the year, dropping by 10% at each 3-mo period. In summary, the longer an article has been out there, the more citations it collects. The relative age effect is a potential confounding variable for the assessment and interpretation of 2-YRC (using calendar years) from JAPPL original articles.     

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.     

Déjà vu--a study of duplicate citations in Medline

MOTIVATION: Duplicate publication impacts the quality of the scientific corpus, has been difficult to detect, and studies this far have been limited in scope and size. Using text similarity searches, we were able to identify signatures of duplicate citations among a body of abstracts. RESULTS: A sample of 62,213 Medline citations was examined and a database of manually verified duplicate citations was created to study author publication behavior. We found that 0.04% of the citations with no shared authors were highly similar and are thus potential cases of plagiarism. 1.35% with shared authors were sufficiently similar to be considered a duplicate. Extrapolating, this would correspond to 3500 and 117,500 duplicate citations in total, respectively. Availability: eTBLAST, an automated citation matching tool, and Déjà vu, the duplicate citation database, are freely available at http://invention.swmed.edu/ and http://spore.swmed.edu/dejavu     

Reasons for Journal Impact Factor Changes: Influence of Changing Source Items

Both the concept and the application of the impact factor (IF) have been subject to widespread critique, including concerns over its potential manipulation. This study provides a systematic analysis of significant journal Impact Factor changes, based on the relative contribution of either one or both variables of the IF equation (i.e. citations / articles as the numerator / denominator of the quotient). A cohort of JCR-listed journals which faced the most dramatic absolute IF changes between 2013 and 2014 (ΔIF ≥ 3.0, n = 49) was analyzed for the causes resulting in IF changes that theses journals have experienced in the last five years. Along with the variation by number of articles and citations, this analysis includes the relative change of both variables compared to each other and offers a classification of `valid`and `invalid`scenarios of IF variation in terms of the intended goal of the IF to measure journal quality. The sample cohort features a considerable incidence of IF increases (18%) which are qualified as `invalid`according to this classification because the IF increase is merely based on a favorably changing number of articles (denominator). The results of this analysis point out the potentially delusive effect of IF increases gained through effective shrinkage of publication output. Therefore, careful consideration of the details of the IF equation and possible implementation of control mechanisms versus the volatile factor of number of articles may help to improve the expressiveness of this metric.     

Universality of Citation Distributions for Academic Institutions and Journals

Citations measure the importance of a publication, and may serve as a proxy for its popularity and quality of its contents. Here we study the distributions of citations to publications from individual academic institutions for a single year. The average number of citations have large variations between different institutions across the world, but the probability distributions of citations for individual institutions can be rescaled to a common form by scaling the citations by the average number of citations for that institution. We find this feature seems to be universal for a broad selection of institutions irrespective of the average number of citations per article. A similar analysis for citations to publications in a particular journal in a single year reveals similar results. We find high absolute inequality for both these sets, Gini coefficients being around 0.66 and 0.58 for institutions and journals respectively. We also find that the top 25% of the articles hold about 75% of the total citations for institutions and the top 29% of the articles hold about 71% of the total citations for journals.     

Citation decay in animal science

The half-life of literature in animal science is about 5–6 years, which is short in comparison to many other fields of scientific research. Only about 10% of the citations in animal-science articles refer to articles which were published more than 20 years before the appearance of the papers which cite them. Probably only a small proportion of the older works cited deserve to be called classics. Historical reviews of literature in scientific specialisations are likely to recover many still useful data and ideas.     

From Excessive Journal Self-Cites to Citation Stacking: Analysis of Journal Self-Citation Kinetics in Search for Journals,Which Boost Their Scientometric Indicators

Bibliometric indicators increasingly affect careers, funding, and reputation of individuals, their institutions and journals themselves. In contrast to author self-citations, little is known about kinetics of journal self-citations. Here we hypothesized that they may show a generalizable pattern within particular research fields or across multiple fields. We thus analyzed self-cites to 60 journals from three research fields (multidisciplinary sciences, parasitology, and information science). We also hypothesized that the kinetics of journal self-citations and citations received from other journals of the same publisher may differ from foreign citations. We analyzed the journals published the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature Publishing Group, and Editura Academiei Române. We found that although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics. Particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journal self-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent. Self-promoting journal self-citations of top-tier journals have rather indirect but negligible direct effects on bibliometric indicators, affecting just the immediacy index and marginally increasing the impact factor itself as long as the affected journals are well established in their fields. In contrast, other forms of journal self-citations and citation stacking may severely affect the impact factor, or other citation-based indices. We identified here a network consisting of three Romanian physics journals Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, Romanian Journal of Physics, and Romanian Reports in Physics, which displayed low to moderate ratio of journal self-citations, but which multiplied recently their impact factors, and were mutually responsible for 55.9%, 64.7% and 63.3% of citations within the impact factor calculation window to the three journals, respectively. They did not receive nearly any network self-cites prior impact factor calculation window, and their network self-cites decreased sharply after the impact factor calculation window. Journal self-citations and citation stacking requires increased attention and elimination from citation indices.     

The Impact of Funding through the RF President’s Grants for Young Scientists (the field – Medicine) on Research Productivity: A Quasi-Experimental Study and a Brief Systematic Review

The impact of grants on research productivity has been investigated by a number of retrospective studies. The results of these studies vary considerably. The objective of my study was to investigate the impact of funding through the RF President’s grants for young scientists on the research productivity of awarded applicants. The study compared the number of total articles and citations for awarded and rejected applicants who in 2007 took part in competitions for young candidates of science (CoS’s) and doctors of science (DoS’s) in the scientific field of medicine. The bibliometric analysis was conducted for the period from 2003 to 2012 (five years before and after the competition). The source of bibliometric data is the eLIBRARY.RU database. The impact of grants on the research productivity of Russian young scientists was assessed using the meta-analytical approach based on data from quasi-experimental studies conducted in other countries. The competition featured 149 CoS’s and 41 DoS’s, out of which 24 (16%) and 22 (54%) applicants, respectively, obtained funding. No difference in the number of total articles and citations at baseline, as well as in 2008–2012, for awarded and rejected applicants was found. The combination of data from the Russian study and other quasi-experimental studies (6 studies, 10 competitions) revealed a small treatment effect – an increase in the total number of publications over a 4–5-year period after the competition by 1.23 (95% CI 0.48–1.97). However, the relationship between the number of total publications published by applicants before and after the competition revealed that this treatment effect is an effect of the “maturation” of scientists with a high baseline publication activity – not of grant funding.     

Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study

Objective To determine if citation counts at two years could be predicted for clinical articles that pass basic criteria for critical appraisal using data within three weeks of publication from external sources and an online article rating service.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Online rating service, Canada.Participants 1274 articles from 105 journals published from January to June 2005, randomly divided into a 60:40 split to provide derivation and validation datasets.Main outcome measures 20 article and journal features, including ratings of clinical relevance and newsworthiness, routinely collected by the McMaster online rating of evidence system, compared with citation counts at two years.Results The derivation analysis showed that the regression equation accounted for 60% of the variation (R²=0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.538 to 0.629). This model applied to the validation dataset gave a similar prediction (R²=0.56, 0.476 to 0.596, shrinkage 0.04; shrinkage measures how well the derived equation matches data from the validation dataset). Cited articles in the top half and top third were predicted with 83% and 61% sensitivity and 72% and 82% specificity. Higher citations were predicted by indexing in numerous databases; number of authors; abstraction in synoptic journals; clinical relevance scores; number of cited references; and original, multicentred, and therapy articles from journals with a greater proportion of articles abstracted.Conclusion Citation counts can be reliably predicted at two years using data within three weeks of publication.     

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.     

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.     

Improved recognition of figures containing fluorescence microscope images in online journal articles using graphical models

MOTIVATION: There is extensive interest in automating the collection, organization and analysis of biological data. Data in the form of images in online literature present special challenges for such efforts. The first steps in understanding the contents of a figure are decomposing it into panels and determining the type of each panel. In biological literature, panel types include many kinds of images collected by different techniques, such as photographs of gels or images from microscopes. We have previously described the SLIF system (http://slif.cbi.cmu.edu) that identifies panels containing fluorescence microscope images among figures in online journal articles as a prelude to further analysis of the subcellular patterns in such images. This system contains a pretrained classifier that uses image features to assign a type (class) to each separate panel. However, the types of panels in a figure are often correlated, so that we can consider the class of a panel to be dependent not only on its own features but also on the types of the other panels in a figure. RESULTS: In this article, we introduce the use of a type of probabilistic graphical model, a factor graph, to represent the structured information about the images in a figure, and permit more robust and accurate inference about their types. We obtain significant improvement over results for considering panels separately. AVAILABILITY: The code and data used for the experiments described here are available from http://murphylab.web.cmu.edu/software.     

Informe: análisis de las publicaciones de socios de la Sociedad Española de Geriatría y Gerontología del año 2006 al 2011

Data is presented from the survey conducted by the Sociedad Española de Geriatría y Gerontología (SEGG) (Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology) among its members in order to assess their scientific production between 2006 and 2011, specifically articles in journals that are indexed in the Science Citation Index. The scientific quality of the publications was quantified using the number of times every article was cited and the journal's impact factor. A total of 162 out of the 2450 members responded (6.6%), reporting a total of 903 individual articles, 335 (37%) of them in geriatrics-specific journals, and 568 (63%) in other journals of other specialties. The number of publications increased yearly from 128 in 2006 to 201 in 2010. The scientific quality could be calculated for 530 articles. On average, publications have been cited 8.2 times (median: 2), with the range of citations being from 0 to 242. The average impact factor was 3.1 (median 2.4), ranging from 0 to 53.5. A number of articles have been published in some of the largest impact factor journals, in those of general-interest, as well as geriatrics-specific and basic science journals.