Predictors of citations in the urological literature

BJU International

Volumn 107, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1876-1880

  Willis, Daniel L ^a   Bahler, Clint D ^b   Neuberger, Molly M ^a   Dahm, Philipp ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

bibliometrics; citation; citation analysis; journal impact factor; self citation; urology

Indexed keywords

AUTHOR; BIBLIOMETRICS; DOCUMENTATION; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STUDY DESIGN; UROLOGIC SURGERY; UROLOGY;

BIBLIOMETRICS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; UROLOGY;

EID: 79957853895     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10028.x     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Garfield E,. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 1996; 313: 411-3 (Pubitemid 26289983)
2. Bhandari M, Busse J, Devereaux PJ, et al,. Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature. Can J Surg 2007; 50: 119-23
3. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP,. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 2005; 293: 2362-6 (Pubitemid 40676758)
4. Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E,. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 2002; 287: 2847-50 (Pubitemid 34591981)
5. Kulkarni AV, Busse JW, Shams I,. Characteristics associated with citation rate of the medical literature. PLoS ONE 2007; 2: e403
6. Figg WD, Dunn L, Liewehr DJ, et al,. Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26: 759-67 (Pubitemid 43807627)
7. Rotz W, Falk E, Joshee A,. A comparison of random number generators used in business- 2004 update. ASA Section Business & Economic Statistics Section 2004; 1316-9
8. Scales CD Jr, Norris RD, Keitz SA, et al,. A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature. J Urol 2007; 177: 1090-5 (Pubitemid 46216373)
9. Tseng TY, Breau RH, Fesperman SF, Vieweg J, Dahm P,. Evaluating the evidence: the methodological and reporting quality of comparative observational studies of surgical interventions in urological publications. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1026-31
10. MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P,. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. J Urol 2010; 184: 648-53
11. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, et al,. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 2010; 8: 24-9
12. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D,. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Open Med 2010; 4: 60-8
13. Favaloro EJ,. Measuring the quality of journals and journal articles: the impact factor tells but a portion of the story. Semin Thromb Hemost 2008; 34: 7-25 (Pubitemid 351640878)
14. Postma E,. Inflated impact factors? The true impact of evolutionary papers in non-evolutionary journals. PLoS ONE 2007; 2: e999
15. [No authors listed] The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med 2006; 3: e291
16. Falagas ME, Alexiou VG,. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2008; 56: 223-6