Abstract
ObjectivesWhen the probability of being cited depends on the outcome of that study, this is called citation bias. The aim of this study is to assess the determinants of citation and how these compare across six different biomedical research fields. Study Design and SettingCitation network analyses were performed for six biomedical research questions. After identifying all relevant publications, all potential citations were mapped together with the actually performed citations in each network. As determinants of citation we assessed the following: study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, gender, affiliation, authority and continent of the corresponding author, funding source, title of the publication, number of references, and self-citation. Random effect logistic regression analysis was used to assess these factors. ResultsFour out of six networks showed evidence for citation bias. Self-citation, authority of the author, and journal impact factor were also positively associated with the probability of citation in all networks. ConclusionThe probability of being cited seems associated with positive study outcomes, the authority of its authors, and the journal in which that article is published. In addition, each network showed specific characteristics that impact the citation dynamics and that need to be considered when performing and interpreting citation analyses.
Highlights
Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
Long-range Research Initiative (LRI) had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or decision to publish
We demonstrated that citation bias has been reported in several academic fields, with varying magnitudes
Summary
Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest (other than the project funding received for this study; see Funding statement). LRI had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or decision to publish. Authors’ contributions: All authors have been involved in the development of the citation analysis methodology. Funding was obtained by G.M.H.S. and M.P.Z. Data collection and analysis on each of the citation networks was performed in collaboration by M.J.E.U., B.D., and G.M.H.S. All co-authors were actively involved in the interpretation of the data. Drafting this article was performed by M.J.E.U.; the article was critically revised by all co-authors.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
