Increased Citation Rates Research Articles

Twitter Use Among Orthopedic Surgery Journals Correlates With Increased Citation Rates.

Use of alternative online means of distribution for research is a rapidly evolving area in orthopedics. In this study, we investigate the impact of Twitter on research citation rates and the association between Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation rates across major orthopedic journals. Original research articles published in a selection of 10 journals between January 2018 and December 2018 were analyzed for number and source of tweets, AAS, and number of citations. We determined the relationship between Twitter use of different sources and number of citations across all journals and within each individual journal, any statistical differences in citations and AAS for tweeted vs nontweeted articles, and the correlation between journal impact factor and average number of monthly tweets. We included 2916 articles in our study, at an average of 26 months after publication. The mean AAS was 9.7 (SD, 45.1; range, 0-1125), and mean citation rate was 6.4 (SD, 8.5; range, 0-166). Impact factor was strongly correlated with average monthly tweets (r2=0.77). Tweeted articles received 8.51 citations on average, compared with 2.56 citations for nontweeted articles (P<.05). Tweets sent by the author/department had the highest impact on future citations (P<.01). Tweets by news outlets had a smaller, positive effect on citations (P<.01). Tweets sent by Arthroscopy (P<.01) and Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (P<.01) had high impacts compared with other journals. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):e38-e44.].

The Rise of Platinum Open Access Journals with Both Impact Factors and Zero Article Processing Charges

It appears that open access (OA) academic publishing is better for science because it provides frictionless access to make significant advancements in knowledge. OA also benefits individual researchers by providing the widest possible audience and concomitant increased citation rates. OA publishing rates are growing fast as increasing numbers of funders demand it and is currently dominated by gold OA (authors pay article processing charges (APCs)). Academics with limited financial resources perceive they must choose between publishing behind pay walls or using research funds for OA publishing. Worse, many new OA journals with low APCs did not have impact factors, which reduces OA selection for tenure track professors. Such unpleasant choices may be dissolving. This article provides analysis with a free and open source python script to collate all journals with impact factors with the now more than 12,000 OA journals that are truly platinum OA (neither the author nor the readers pay for the peer-reviewed work). The results found platinum OA is growing faster than both academic publishing and OA publishing. There are now over 350 platinum OA journals with impact factors over a wide variety of academic disciplines, giving most academics options for OA with no APCs.

Relationship between Twitter and Radiology Journal Citations.

Relationship between Twitter and Radiology Journal Citations.

RACIAL-ETHNIC DISPARITY IN DENTAL CARE IN NURSING HOMES

Minority older adults are at higher risks of poor oral health. Little is known about the extent of and the contributing factors to racial/ethnic disparity in dental care quality in the long-term care settings. Previous studies suggest that organizational and system-level factors are key determinants of oral health among minority older adults. We examined the racial/ethnic disparity in dental care delivery in nursing homes (NHs) by facility and market characteristics. We analyzed the 2000-2016 national Inspection Survey data for all certified-NHs (n=248,975 facility-years). Two designated deficiency citations were used to measure dental care performance. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare the rates of deficiency citations among NHs in different quartiles of the share of minority residents, adjusting for facility characteristics, market characteristics, year and state fixed effects. Overall, compared to NHs in the lowest quartile of the share of minority residents (average % minority residents =0.24%), NHs in the highest quartile of the share of minority residents (average % minority residents = 46.5%) and those in the second highest share (average % minority residents=13.9%) had 46.8% and 31.2% higher odds of receiving dental care citations(p<0.001 for both), respectively. The increased citation rates persisted over time (p=0.40) and were greater among for-profit NHs (p=0.02). Our study suggests that minority older adults in NHs are disproportionately affected by poorer dental care performance. There is a great need to improve quality of dental care in NHs, particularly for those that are for-profit and those that disproportionately serve minority residents.

Shorter distances between papers over time are due to more cross-field references and increased citation rate to higher-impact papers

The exponential increase in the number of scientific publications raises the question of whether the sciences are expanding into a fractured structure, making cross-field communication difficult. On the other hand, scientists may be motivated to learn extensively across fields to enhance their innovative capacity, and this may offset the negative effects of fragmentation. Through an investigation of the distances within and clustering of cross-sectional citation networks, this study presents evidence that fields of science become more integrated over time. The average citation distance between papers published in the same year decreased from ∼5.33 to 3.18 steps between 1950 and 2018. This observation is attributed to the growth of cross-field communication throughout the entire period as well as the growing importance of high-impact papers to bridge networks in the same year. Three empirical findings support this conclusion. First, distances decreased between almost all disciplines throughout the time period. Second, inequality in the number of citations received by papers increased, and, as a consequence, the shortest paths in the network depend more on high-impact papers later in the period. Third, the dispersion of connections between fields increased continually. Moreover, these changes did not entail a lower level of clustering of citations. Both within- and cross-field citations show a similar rate of slowly growing clustering values in all years. The latter findings suggest that domain-spanning scholarly communication is partly enabled by new fields that connect disciplines.

Brazilian Articles in Top-Tier Dental Journals and Influence of International Collaboration on Citation Rates

This study investigated the presence of co-authorship from Brazil in articles published in top-tier dental journals and analyzed the influence of international collaboration, article type (original research or review), and funding on citation rates. Articles published between 2015 and 2017 in 38 selected journals from 14 dental subareas were screened in Scopus. Bibliographic information, citation counts, and funding details were recorded for all articles (N=15619). Collaboration with other top-10 publishing countries in dentistry was registered. Annual citations averages (ACA) were calculated. A linear regression model assessed differences in ACA between subareas. Multilevel linear regression models evaluated the influence of article type, funding, and presence of international collaboration in ACA. Brazil was a frequent co-author of articles published in the period (top 3: USA=25.5%; Brazil=13.8%; Germany=9.2%) and the country with most publications in two subareas. The subjects with the biggest share of Brazil are Operative Dentistry/Cariology, Dental Materials, and Endodontics. Brazil was second in total citations, but fifth in citation averages per article. From the total of 2155 articles co-authored by Brazil, 74.8% had no co-authorship from other top-10 publishing countries. USA (17.8%), Italy (4.2%), and UK (3.2%) were the main co-author countries, but the main collaboration country varied between subjects. Implantology and Dental Materials were the subjects with most international co-authorship. Review articles and articles with international collaboration were associated with increased citation rates, whereas the presence of study funding did not influence the citations.

Bibliometric analysis of manuscript characteristics that influence citations: A comparison of six major psychiatry journals

In this study we investigated the characteristics of psychiatry manuscript that influence its citation rate. We conducted a cross-sectional study of published articles (n = 545), from January to June 2007, from 6 major psychiatry journals with the highest 5-year impact-factor. Citation count for these articles was retrieved from Web Of Science (by Clarivate Analytics) and 22 article characteristics were tabulated manually. We then predicted the citation rate by performing univariate analysis, spearman rank-order correlation, and multiple regression model on the collected variables. Using spearman rank-order correlation, we found the following variables to have significant positive correlation with citations: abstract character count (rs and p-value, 0.22 and 0.001 respectively), number of references (0.2, 0.01), abstract word count (0.17, 0.0005), number of pages (0.15, 0.003), open access (0.06, 0.05), study design reported in title (0.04, 0.0001), total number of words (0.03, 0.01) and structured abstract (0.03, 0.0009). In a multivariate linear regression model, the following variables predicted increased citation rates (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.38): reporting of study design in title, structured abstract and open access. Editors and authors of psychiatry journals can improve the impact of their journals and articles by utilizing this bibliometric study when assembling their manuscript.

Bibliometric Analysis of Factors Predicting Increased Citations in the Vascular and Endovascular Literature

Dissemination of research findings in the scientific community is reflected by the citation count. Our objective was to investigate the relative citation impact of vascular research studies and identify potential predictors of increased citation rates. Articles published in leading journals of vascular and general surgery (Journal of Vascular Surgery, European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Journal of Endovascular Therapy, Annals of Vascular Surgery and Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, Journal of the American College of Surgeons, and JAMA Surgery) during a 4-month period were identified through electronic databases. Variables potentially associated with increased citation rates, including subject, design, title characteristics, article length, bibliographic references, authorship, geographic distribution, interdisciplinary collaboration, article access, and funding, were assessed in univariate and multiple linear regression models through December 2012. A total of 226 articles with a total number of 4,605 citations were identified. Univariate analysis revealed that endovascular-related studies, study design, studies reporting design in the title, long articles, and studies with high number of references were associated with higher citation rates. On multivariate analysis, 3 variables were found to independently predict the number of citations: study subject (endovascular-related studies; regression coefficient [95% confidence interval], 0.474 [0.240-0.708]; P < 0.001); study design (randomized controlled trial; regression coefficient [95% confidence interval], 0.575 [0.145-1.005]; P = 0.009); and article length (number of pages; regression coefficient [95% confidence interval], 0.069 [0.016-0.123]; P = 0.011). Authors involved in vascular research may enhance the impact of their work by embarking on research strategies of high methodologic quality and pursuing work related with new technologies and evolving endovascular therapies.

Data management strategies for multinational large-scale systems biology projects

Good accessibility of publicly funded research data is essential to secure an open scientific system and eventually becomes mandatory [Wellcome Trust will Penalise Scientists Who Don’t Embrace Open Access. The Guardian 2012]. By the use of high-throughput methods in many research areas from physics to systems biology, large data collections are increasingly important as raw material for research. Here, we present strategies worked out by international and national institutions targeting open access to publicly funded research data via incentives or obligations to share data. Funding organizations such as the British Wellcome Trust therefore have developed data sharing policies and request commitment to data management and sharing in grant applications. Increased citation rates are a profound argument for sharing publication data. Pre-publication sharing might be rewarded by a data citation credit system via digital object identifiers (DOIs) which have initially been in use for data objects. Besides policies and incentives, good practice in data management is indispensable. However, appropriate systems for data management of large-scale projects for example in systems biology are hard to find. Here, we give an overview of a selection of open-source data management systems proved to be employed successfully in large-scale projects.

Predictors of citations in the urological literature

To assess the factors associated with increased citation rates in the urological literature by reviewing articles published in the four major urological journals to help authors improve the impact of their work. A random sample of 200 original research articles published between January and June 2004 was analysed from The Journal of Urology, Urology, European Urology and BJU International. Study information was abstracted by two independent reviewers and citation counts within 4 years of publication were collected using Web of Science(TM) . Study characteristics and citation rates were analysed using median and interquartile ranges (IQRs), and logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate which factors predicted greater citation rates. The overall median number of citations per published article was 6.0 (IQR 3-12). After univariate analysis, we found that study design, study topic, continent of origin and sample size were associated with greater median citation rates. In a multivariate linear regression model, study design and study topic (oncology) predicted increased citation rates. Randomized controlled trials were cited a median of 13.5 times and were the strongest predictor of citation rates with an odds ratio of 115.5 (95% confidence interval 9.4-1419.6). Citation rates are associated with study design and study topic in the urological literature. Authors may improve the impact of their work by designing clinical studies with greater methodological safeguards against bias.

Acknowledgment of Reviewer performance in 2008

It is going well with Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing (MBEC)! As explained in a series of editorials over the past few years, structural changes were implemented in the journal at practically all levels [2–5]. The most important changes were teaming with a new publisher, Springer, and establishing a new editorial team. The aim, clearly underwritten by the Administrative Council of the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE), was to increase the impact of MBEC as measured by the indices published on the Web of Science [1] (http://science.thomsonreuters.com), (i.e., the Impact Factor, IF). We have always seen this as a joint effort of all involved. We also knew that this was a slow process, especially because the indices used to compute the IF cover the journal’s production and influence over a series of years. For understanding and support to this process, I am grateful to the efforts of IFMBE’s Federation Journal Committee over these last years. Recently the indices have been updated and indeed success is now measureable and reported publically. Our IF for 2008 increased by 40% to 1.38, but more importantly, we anticipate a further significant increase next year based on the citations to MBEC papers published in 2007 and 2008. Another indication of the MBEC’s increased visibility is the observation that the number of citations to all papers published in MBEC over the 47 years of its existence, increased in 2008 by 30%. This increased citation rate is to MBEC papers accepted under responsibilities of the former editors. Our Journal ranks second in the list of Biomedical Engineering journals when sorted by cited half-life manuscripts, which is 9.8 years. This implies that we have many hallmark publications that are cited even after 10 years. Essential for the journal is the willingness of our reviewers to evaluate the manuscripts that are submitted to the journal in a timely fashion. We thought it was a good moment to recognize their contributions by publishing their names and indicate the number of reports they wrote in 2008. We are grateful to the international community of reviewers and authors for contributing to the continuation of our success in serving the Medical and Biological Engineering Community. Jos AE Spaan. Editor in Chief Deputy Editor: Ruben Coronel, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Associates Editors: Jenny Dankelman, University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Dario Farina, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Andrew McCulloch, University of California, San Diego, USA Nico A. M. Schellart, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Maria Siebes, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Andreas Wahle, University of Iowa, Iowa, USA

Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate

Presentation based on the publication here:Piwowar HA, Day RS, Fridsma DB (2007) Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate. PLoS ONE 2(3): e308. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308Sharing research data provides benefit to the general scientific community, but the benefit is less obvious for the investigator who makes his or her data available.We examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications with respect to the availability of their data. The 48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression.This correlation between publicly available data and increased literature impact may further motivate investigators to share their detailed research data.

Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate

AbstractPresentation based on the publication here:Piwowar HA, Day RS, Fridsma DB (2007) Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate. PLoS ONE 2(3): e308. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308Sharing research data provides benefit to the general scientific community, but the benefit is less obvious for the investigator who makes his or her data available.We examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications with respect to the availability of their data. The 48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression.This correlation between publicly available data and increased literature impact may further motivate investigators to share their detailed research data.

Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate.

BackgroundSharing research data provides benefit to the general scientific community, but the benefit is less obvious for the investigator who makes his or her data available.Principal FindingsWe examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications with respect to the availability of their data. The 48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression.SignificanceThis correlation between publicly available data and increased literature impact may further motivate investigators to share their detailed research data.

Does Scientific Collaboration Increase the Impact of Ecological Articles?

Abstract We examined the effects of different types of collaboration on the citation rates of 837 research papers published in Oecologia from 1998 through 2000. Multiauthored papers had higher annual citation rates, but also higher self-citation rates, than single-authored papers. Interdisciplinary collaboration between institutions increased citation rates, whereas in-house collaboration reduced them. Contrary to our predictions, international collaboration had no effect on the citation rates of ecological papers, and US ecologists benefited from collaboration more than their European colleagues. Altogether, our results indicate that scientific collaboration in ecology has a rather minor effect on the impact of the resulting publications, as measured by their citation rates.

Gaining scientific recognition by position: Does editorship increase citation rates?

We investigated three rival hypotheses concerning scientific communication and recognition: the performance hypothesis and two alternative assumptions, the reputation hypothesis and the resource hypothesis. The performance hypothesis reflects the norm of universalism in the sense given by Merton, the reputation hypothesis predicts a Matthew Effect (scientists receive communications and recognition on the basis of their reputation), and the resource hypothesis assumes that communication with other scientists is used as a form of asset to defend one's own research results. Using bibliometric methods, we assessed whether assuming an important scientific position enhances scientific impact and prestige. Specifically, we explored whether a person's assumption of editorship responsibilities of a psychology journal increases the frequency with which that person is cited in the Social Sciences Citation Index. The data base consisted of ten psychology journals, seven premier American and three German journals, covering the years 1981 to 1995. Citation rates for the years prior to, during, and following periods of editorship were compared for three groups: editors cited in the journal they edited, editors cited in a journal they did not edit, and non-editors. The results showed that during their editorship, editors showed an increased citation rate in the journal edited; this result was found for American journals, but not for German journals. These findings indicate that, for American journals, assuming editorship responsibilities for a major psychology journal increases one's scientific impact, at least as reflected by a measure of citation rate. A careful examination of ages of the non-editors' citations reveals that the post-editorship citation rates of editors and comparable non-editors do not differ significantly. The reputation hypothesis (Matthew Effect) is therefore preferred for interpreting the results, because it shows the cumulative nature of prestige-oriented citations. The results contradict the convention of using citation rates as pure performance measures.