Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 58, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 1100-1107

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^a,b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA STRUCTURES; DRUG PRODUCTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

BIOMEDICINES; MULTIPLE PUBLICATION;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 34250209152     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20531     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Abt, H.A. (1991). Science, citation, and funding, Science, 251(5000), 1408-1409.
2. Abt, H.A. (1993). Institutional productivities. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 105(689), 794-798.
3. Baker, M., Robertson, F., & Toguchi, H. (1996). The australian postgraduate research award scheme: An evaluation of the 1990 cohort. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service, Higher Education Division.
4. Baldi, S. (1998). Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: A network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 829-846.
5. Beaver, D.B. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 399-408.
6. Blancett, S.S., Flanagin, A., & Young, R.K. (1995). Duplicate publication in the nursing literature. Image: The journal of Nursing Scholarship, 27, 51-56.
7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2005a). Committee peer review at an international research foundation: Predictive validity and fairness of selection decisions on post-graduate fellowship applications. Research Evaluation, 14(1), 15-20.
8. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. (2005b). Criteria used by a peer review committee for selection of research fellows. A boolean probit analysis, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(4), 296-303.
9. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2005c). Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Analysis of reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions. Scientometrics, 63(2), 297-320.
10. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2006a). Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments. Effects of university prestige and field of study on approval and rejection of fellowship applications. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 209-219.
11. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2006b). Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review - A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics, 68(3), 427-440.
12. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). Gatekeepers of science - Effects of external reviewers' attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 83-91.
13. Bott, D.M., & Hargens, L.L. (1991). Are sociologists' publications uncited? Citation rates of journal articles, chapters, and books. The American Sociologist, 22, 147-158.
14. Breitling, L.P. (2005). Misconduct: pressure to achieve corrodes ideals. Nature, 436(7051), 626.
15. Broad, W.J. (1981). The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science, 211(4487), 1137-1139.
16. Cameron, A.C., & Trivedi, P.K. (1998). Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Cole, J.R. (2000). A short history of the use of citations as a measure of the impact of scientific and scholarly work. In B. Cronin & H.B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge. A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 281-300). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
18. Cole, J.R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 2, 217-258.
19. Conroy, R.M. (2002). Choosing an appropriate real-life measure of effect size: The case of a continuous predictor and a binary outcome. The Stata Journal, 2(3), 290-295.
20. Daniel, H.-D. (2005). Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity. Learned Publishing, 18, 143-148.
21. DeAngelis, C.D. (2004). Duplicate publication, multiple problems. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(14), 1745-1746.
22. Egger, E., Zellweger-Zahner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C. Lengeler, C., & Antes, G. (1997). Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet, 350(9074), 326-329.
23. Frazzetto, G. (2004). Who did what? Uneasiness with the current authorship system is prompting the scientific community to seek alternatives. EMBO Reports, 5(5), 446-448.
24. Giles, J. (2005). Special report: Taking on the cheats. Nature, 435(7040), 258-259.
25. Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., & Thijs, B. (2003). Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliornetric time horizon. Scientometrics, 58(3), 571-586.
26. Glänzel. W., & Schubert, A. (1993). A characterization of scientometric distributions based on harmonic means. Scientometrics, 26(1), 81-96.
27. Hagstrom, W.O. (1971). Inputs, outputs, and the prestige of university science departments. Sociology of Education, 44, 375-397.
28. Hamilton, L.C. (1992). Regression with graphics. A second course in applied statistics. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
29. Hammerschmidt, D.E. (1992). Echoes in the halls: Thoughts on double publication. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 119(2), 109-110.
30. Hanke, C.W., Arndt, K.A., Dobson, R.L., Dzubow, L.M., Parish, L.C., & Taylor, J.S. (1990). Dual publication and manipulation of the editorial process. Archives of Dermatology, 126(12), 1625-1626.
31. Huston, P., & Moher, D. (1996). Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research. Lancet, 347(9007), 1024-1026.
32. Huth, E.J. (1986). Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. Annals of Internal Medicine, 104(2), 257-259.
33. Huth, E.J. (2000). Repetitive and divided publication. In A.H. Jones & F. McLellan (Eds.), Ethical issues in biomedical publication (pp. 112-136). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2004). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. Philadelphia: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
35. Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 135-140.
36. Klamer, A., & van Dalen, H.P. (2002). Attention and the art of scientific publishing. Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(3), 289-315.
37. Kohler, U., & Kreuter, F. (2005). Data analysis using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
38. Laband, D.N. (1990). Is there value added from the review process in economics? Preliminary evidence from authors, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(2), 341-352.
39. Lawrence, P.A. (2003). The politics of publication: Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Nature, 422(6929), 259-261.
40. Long, J.S., & Freese, J. (2003). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station. TX: Stata Press.
41. Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M.S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737-738.
42. Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
43. Merton, R.K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis. 79(4), 606-623.
44. Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
45. Mojon-Azzi, S.M., Jiang, X.Y., Wagner, U., & Mojon, D.S. (2004). Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals: The tip of the iceberg? Ophthalmology, 111(5), 863-866.
46. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Everitt, B. (2004). A handbook of statistical analyses using Stata (3rd ed.), Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
47. Rossi, P.H., Freeman, H.E., & Lipsey, M.W. (1999). Evaluation: a systematic approach. London: Sage Publications.
48. Schein, M., & Paladugu, R. (2001). Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg? Surgery, 129(6), 655-661.
49. Sorensen, B. (2005). Plagiarism criteria ignore the way research evolves. Nature, 436(7047), 24.
50. StataCorp. (2005). Stata statistical software: Release 9. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
51. Stewart, J.A. (1990). Drifting continents and colliding paradigms: Perspectives on the geoscience revolution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
52. Susser, M., & Yankauer, A. (1993). Prior, duplicate, repetitive, fragmented, and redundant publication and editorial decisions. American Journal of Public Health, 83(6), 792-793.
53. Taylor, I. (2005). Academia's 'misconduct' is acceptable to industry. Nature, 436(7051), 626.
54. Tramer, M.R., Reynolds, D.J.M., Moore, R.A., & McQuay, H.J. (1997). Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 635-640.
55. Tregenza, T. (2002). Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(8), 349-350.
56. van Dalen, H.P., & Henkens, K.E. (2005). Signals in science - On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics, 64(2), 209-233.
57. van Raan, A.F.J. (2004). Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 19-50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
58. Wadman, M. (2005). One in three scientists confesses to having sinned. Nature, 435(7043), 718-719.
59. Waldron, T. (1992). Is duplicate publishing on the increase? British Medical Journal, 304(6833), 1029-1029.
60. Yank, V., & Barnes, D. (2003). Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: Cross-sectional survey of editors and authors. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(2), 109-114.
61. Yank, V., Rennie, D., & Bero, L.A. (2005, September). The extent and characteristics of duplicate publications in a cohort of meta-analyses. Paper presented at the Fifth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, IL.
62. Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.