What a difference a colon makes: how superficial factors influence subsequent citation
- 976 Downloads
Getting cited is important for scholars and for the institutions in which they work. Whether because of the influence on scientific progress or because of the reputation of scholars and their institutions, understanding why some articles are cited more often than others can help scholars write more highly cited articles. This article builds upon earlier literature which identifies seemingly superficial factors that influence the citation rate of articles. Three Journal Citation Report subject categories are analyzed to identify these effects. From a set of 2,016 articles in Sociology, 6,957 articles in General & Internal Medicine, and 23,676 articles in Applied Physics, metadata from the Web of Knowledge was downloaded in addition to PDFs of the full articles. In this article number of words in title, number of pages, number of references, sentences in the abstract, sentences in the paper, number of authors and readability were identified as factors for analysis.
KeywordsCitations Readability References Sociology Applied Physics General & Internal Medicine
The authors would like to thank Loet Leydesdorff for his helpful comments. Furthermore we believe that additional comments from the two anonymous reviewers have increased the quality of this article, for which we are grateful.
- Ball, R., Mittermaier, B., & Tunger, D. (2009). Creation of journal-based publication profiles of scientific institutions—A methodology for the interdisciplinary comparison of scientific research based on the J-factor. Scientometrics, 81(2), 381–392. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-2120-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2003). The craft of research (2nd ed., Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing). Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
- Botton, A. D. (2001). The consolations of philosophy. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
- Collins, H. M. (1990). Artificial experts: Social knowledge and intelligent machines (inside technology). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.003.
- Jacques, T. S., & Sebire, N. J. (2010). The impact of article titles on citation hits: An analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Reports, 1(1). doi: 10.1258/shorts.2009.100020.
- Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P, Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.Google Scholar
- Larivière, V., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2008). Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900–2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 288–296. doi: 10.1002/asi.20744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Lin, S.-Y., Su, C.-C., Lai, Y.-D., Yang, L.-C., & Hsieh, S.-K. (2009). Assessing text readability using hierarchical lexical relations retrieved from WordNet. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 14(1), 45–84.Google Scholar
- Martin, B., & Groth, E. (1991). Scientific knowledge in controversy: The social dynamics of the fluoridation debate (SUNY series in science, technology, and society). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Microsoft. (2003). Readability scores. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HP051863181033.aspx. Accessed 23 March 2013.
- Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little science, big science (George B. Pegram lectures, Vol. 1962). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Webster, G. D., Jonason, P. K., & Schember, T. O. (2009). Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: Analyses of title words and citation counts in evolution and human behavior, 1979–2008. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(3), 348–362.Google Scholar