Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ioannidis JPA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9282275 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite.
Ioannidis John P A JPA Bendavid Eran E Salholz-Hillel Maia M Boyack Kevin W KW Baas Jeroen J
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20220707 28
Massive scientific productivity accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020 to 2021 and assessed the impact on scientist citation profiles. Using Scopus data until August 1, 2021, COVID-19 items accounted for 4% of papers published, 20% of citations received to papers published in 2020 to 2021, and >30% of citations received in 36 of the 174 disciplines of science (up to 79.3% in general and intern ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Commonly used data citation practices rely on unverifiable retrieval methods which are susceptible to content drift, which occurs when the data associated with an identifier have been allowed to change. Based on our earlier work on reliable dataset identifiers, we propose signed citations, i.e., customary data citations extended to also include a standards-based, verifiable, unique, and fixed-length digital content signature. We show that content signatures enable independent verification of the cited content and can improve the persistence of the citation. Because content signatures are location- and storage-medium-agnostic, cited data can be copied to new locations to ensure their persistence across current and future storage media and data networks. As a result, content signatures can be leveraged to help scalably store, locate, access, and independently verify content across new and existing data infrastructures. Content signatures can also be embedded inside content to create robust, distributed knowledge graphs that can be cited using a single signed citation. We describe applications of signed citations to solve real-world data collection, identification, and citation challenges.
| S-EPMC10300068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWikipedia is the most frequently accessed online health information resource and is well positioned as a valuable tool for public health communication and knowledge translation. The authors aimed to explore their institution's health and medical research reach by analyzing its presence in Wikipedia articles.MethodsIn October 2022, a comprehensive database search was constructed in PubMed to retrieve clinical evidence syntheses published by at least one author affiliated with McMaster University from 2017 to 2022, inclusive. Altmetric Explorer was queried using PubMed Identifiers and article titles to access metadata and Wikipedia citation data. 3,582 health evidence syntheses from at least one McMaster University affiliated author were analyzed.ResultsSix percent (n=219) of health evidence syntheses from the authors' institution were cited 568 times in 524 unique Wikipedia articles across 28 different language editions. 45% of citations appeared in English Wikipedia, suggesting a broad global reach for the institutions' research outputs. When adjusted for open access publications, 8% of McMaster University's health evidence syntheses appear in Wikipedia.ConclusionAltmetric Explorer is a valuable tool for exploring the reach of an institution's research outputs. Isolating Altmetric data to focus on Wikipedia citations has value for any institution wishing to gain more insight into the global, community-level reach of its contributions to the latest health and medical evidence.
| S-EPMC11305477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research in computer systems often involves the engineering, implementation, and measurement of complex systems software and data. The availability of these artifacts is critical to the reproducibility and replicability of the research results, because system software often embodies numerous implicit assumptions and parameters that are not fully documented in the research article itself. Artifact availability has also been previously associated with higher paper impact, as measured by citations counts. And yet, the sharing of research artifacts is still not as common as warranted by its importance. The primary goal of this study is to provide an exploratory statistical analysis of the artifact-sharing rates and associated factors in the research field of computer systems. To this end, we explore a cross-sectional dataset of papers from 56 contemporaneous systems conferences. In addition to extensive data on the conferences, papers, and authors, this analyze dataset includes data on the release, ongoing availability, badging, and locations of research artifacts. We combine this manually curated dataset with citation counts to evaluate the relationships between different artifact properties and citation metrics. Additionally, we revisit previous observations from other fields on the relationships between artifact properties and various other characteristics of papers, authors, and venue and apply them to this field. The overall rate of artifact sharing we find in this dataset is approximately 30%, although it varies significantly with paper, author, and conference factors, and it is closer to 43% for conferences that actively evaluated artifact sharing. Approximately 20% of all shared artifacts are no longer accessible four years after publications, predominately when hosted on personal and academic websites. Our main finding is that papers with shared artifacts averaged approximately 75% more citations than papers with none. Even after controlling for numerous confounding covariates, the release of an artifact appears to increase the citations of a systems paper by some 34%. This metric is further boosted by the open availability of the paper's text.
| S-EPMC9044204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The relationship between traditional metrics of research impact (e.g., number of citations) and alternative metrics (altmetrics) such as Twitter activity are of great interest, but remain imprecisely quantified. We used generalized linear mixed modeling to estimate the relative effects of Twitter activity, journal impact factor, and time since publication on Web of Science citation rates of 1,599 primary research articles from 20 ecology journals published from 2012-2014. We found a strong positive relationship between Twitter activity (i.e., the number of unique tweets about an article) and number of citations. Twitter activity was a more important predictor of citation rates than 5-year journal impact factor. Moreover, Twitter activity was not driven by journal impact factor; the 'highest-impact' journals were not necessarily the most discussed online. The effect of Twitter activity was only about a fifth as strong as time since publication; accounting for this confounding factor was critical for estimating the true effects of Twitter use. Articles in impactful journals can become heavily cited, but articles in journals with lower impact factors can generate considerable Twitter activity and also become heavily cited. Authors may benefit from establishing a strong social media presence, but should not expect research to become highly cited solely through social media promotion. Our research demonstrates that altmetrics and traditional metrics can be closely related, but not identical. We suggest that both altmetrics and traditional citation rates can be useful metrics of research impact.
| S-EPMC5106010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Some scholars add authors to their research papers or grant proposals even when those individuals contribute nothing to the research effort. Some journal editors coerce authors to add citations that are not pertinent to their work and some authors pad their reference lists with superfluous citations. How prevalent are these types of manipulation, why do scholars stoop to such practices, and who among us is most susceptible to such ethical lapses? This study builds a framework around how intense competition for limited journal space and research funding can encourage manipulation and then uses that framework to develop hypotheses about who manipulates and why they do so. We test those hypotheses using data from over 12,000 responses to a series of surveys sent to more than 110,000 scholars from eighteen different disciplines spread across science, engineering, social science, business, and health care. We find widespread misattribution in publications and in research proposals with significant variation by academic rank, discipline, sex, publication history, co-authors, etc. Even though the majority of scholars disapprove of such tactics, many feel pressured to make such additions while others suggest that it is just the way the game is played. The findings suggest that certain changes in the review process might help to stem this ethical decline, but progress could be slow.
| S-EPMC5718422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we explore the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier (DOI) in the Thomson Reuters database Data Citation Index (DCI). We investigate if cited research data "impacts" the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media platforms. Three tools are used to collect altmetrics scores, namely PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com, and the corresponding results are compared. We found that out of the three altmetrics tools, PlumX has the best coverage. Our experiments revealed that research data remain mostly uncited (about 85 %), although there has been an increase in citing data sets published since 2008. The percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories are responsible for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics "foot-prints" is even lower (4-9 %) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade. In our study, we also found no correlation between the number of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores. Yet, certain data types (i.e. survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and also receive higher altmetrics scores. Additionally, we performed citation and altmetric analyses of all research data published between 2011 and 2013 in four different disciplines covered by the DCI. In general, these results correspond very well with the ones obtained for research data cited at least twice and also show low numbers in citations and in altmetrics. Finally, we observed that there are disciplinary differences in the availability and extent of altmetrics scores.
| S-EPMC4833815 | biostudies-other
Project description:Specialized and emerging fields of research infrequently cross disciplinary boundaries and would benefit from frameworks, methods, and materials informed by other fields. Document co-citation analysis, a method developed by bibliometric research, is demonstrated as a way to help identify key literature for cross-disciplinary ideas. To illustrate the method in a useful context, we mapped peer-recognized scholarship related to systems thinking. In addition, three procedures for validation of co-citation networks are proposed and implemented. This method may be useful for strategically selecting information that can build consilience about ideas and constructs that are relevant across a range of disciplines.
| S-EPMC5752411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWomen surgeons face numerous barriers to career advancement. Inequitable citation of surgical literature may represent a contributing factor to gender disparities in academic surgery.Study designThis was a cross-sectional analysis of publications from 50 top-ranking surgery journals in 2017 and 2018, as defined by the 2019 InCites Journal Citation Reports. The citation rate of publications by women vs men first authors was compared. Similarly, the citation rate of publications by men vs women last authors was also compared. Adjusted regression analyses of citation rates accounted for the time interval since publication as well as the journal within which the article was published, among other potential confounding factors.ResultsA total of 19,084 publications from 48 surgery journals with a median (interquartile range) of 8 (4 to 15) citations contributing to a median (interquartile range) Journal Impact Factor of 4.0 (3.4 to 4.6) were analyzed. Compared with man-first author publications, woman-first author publications demonstrated a 9% lower citation rate (incidence rate ratio 0.91, p < 0.001). Similarly, compared with publications by man-last authors, woman-last author publications demonstrated a 4% lower citation rate (incidence rate ratio 0.96, p = 0.03). These associations persisted after multivariable adjustment for additional confounding factors, however, not on sensitivity analysis of 24 of the highest-ranking journals.ConclusionsAmong top-tier surgical journals, publications by women-first and -last authors were less cited compared with publications by men-first and -last authors, but not among the highest-tier surgical journals. Gender bias may exist in the citation of surgical research, contributing to gender disparities in academic surgery.
| S-EPMC8931844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The nature of the empirical proportionality constant A in the relation L = Ah(2) between total number of citations L of the publication output of an author and his/her Hirsch index h is analyzed using data of the publication output and citations for six scientists elected to the membership of the Royal Society in 2006 and 199 professors working in different institutions in Poland. The main problem with the h index of different authors calculated by using the above relation is that it underestimates the ranking of scientists publishing papers receiving very high citations and results in high values of A. It was found that the value of the Hirsch constant A for different scientists is associated with the discreteness of h and is related to the tapered Hirsch index h(T) by A(1/2) ≈ 1.21h(T). To overcome the drawback of a wide range of A associated with the discreteness of h for different authors, a simple index, the radius R of circular citation area, defined as R = (L/π)(1/2) ≈ h, is suggested. This circular citation area radius R is easy to calculate and improves the ranking of scientists publishing high-impact papers. Finally, after introducing the concept of citation acceleration a = L/t(2) = π(R/t)(2) (t is publication duration of a scientist), some general features of citations of publication output of Polish professors are described in terms of their citability. Analysis of the data of Polish professors in terms of citation acceleration a shows that: (1) the citability of the papers of a majority of physics and chemistry professors is much higher than that of technical sciences professors, and (2) increasing fraction of conference papers as well as non-English papers and engagement in administrative functions of professors result in decreasing citability of their overall publication output. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0805-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
| S-EPMC3495097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging or mandating authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong uptake of data availability statements in recent literature. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, for example via a URL or permanent identifier, and if there is an added value in providing such links. We consider 531, 889 journal articles published by PLOS and BMC, develop an automatic system for labelling their data availability statements according to four categories based on their content and the type of data availability they display, and finally analyze the citation advantage of different statement categories via regression. We find that, following mandated publisher policies, data availability statements become very common. In 2018 93.7% of 21,793 PLOS articles and 88.2% of 31,956 BMC articles had data availability statements. Data availability statements containing a link to data in a repository-rather than being available on request or included as supporting information files-are a fraction of the total. In 2017 and 2018, 20.8% of PLOS publications and 12.2% of BMC publications provided DAS containing a link to data in a repository. We also find an association between articles that include statements that link to data in a repository and up to 25.36% (± 1.07%) higher citation impact on average, using a citation prediction model. We discuss the potential implications of these results for authors (researchers) and journal publishers who make the effort of sharing their data in repositories. All our data and code are made available in order to reproduce and extend our results.
| S-EPMC7176083 | biostudies-literature