Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with para-textual factors and over time

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 419-429

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Leydesdorff, Loet ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Citation impact; F1000; Prediction; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

FORECASTING; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

BIBLIOMETRIC; CITATION IMPACT; DEPENDENT VARIABLES; F1000; IMPACT FACTOR; INDEPENDENT VARIABLES; QUALITY INDICATORS; WEB OF SCIENCE;

INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

EID: 84925969055     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Acock A.C. A gentle introduction to Stata 2014, Stata Press, College Station, TX, USA.
2. Allison P.D. Inequality and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 1980, 10(2):163-179.
3. Bensman S.J. Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2007, 41:93-155.
4. Berry W.D., Feldman S. Multiple regression in practice 1985, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
5. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2011, 45:199-245.
6. Bornmann L. Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):935-950.
7. Bornmann L. Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, (in press).
8. Bornmann L., de Moya-Anegón F., Leydesdorff L. Do scientific advancements lean on the shoulders of giants? A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(10):e11344.
9. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L., Wang J. How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date?. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(1):175-180.
10. Bornmann L., Marx W. Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(2):408-418.
11. Bornmann L., Williams R. How to calculate the practical significance of citation impact differences? An empirical example from evaluative institutional bibliometrics using adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(2):562-574. 10.1016/j.joi.2013.02.005.
12. Chen C., Leydesdorff L. Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 10.1002/asi.22968.
13. Colliander C. A novel approach to citation normalization: A similarity-based method for creating reference sets. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 10.1002/asi.23193.
14. Council of Canadian Academies Informing research choices: Indicators and judgment: The expert panel on science performance and research funding 2012, Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa, Canada.
15. Cozzens S.E. What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model. Scientometrics 1989, 15(5-6):437-447.
16. Cragg J.G., Uhler R. The demand for automobiles. Canadian Journal of Economics 1970, 3:386-406.
17. de Solla Price D.J. Citation measures of hard sciences, soft science, technology and non-science. Communication among scientists and engineers 1970, 3-22. Heath, Lexington, MA, USA. C.E. Nelson, D.K. Polloc (Eds.).
18. Didegah F., Thelwall M. Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(5):1055-1064. 10.1002/asi.22806.
19. Du J., Tang X., Wu Y. The effects of research level and article type on the differences between citation metrics and F1000 recommendations 2015, Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01076.
20. F1000 What is F1000? 2012, Retrieved from http://f1000.com/about/whatis.
21. Gilbert G.N. Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science 1977, 7(1):113-122.
22. Hausman J., Hall B.H., Griliches Z. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents R and D relationship. Econometrica 1984, 52(4):909-938.
23. Hilbe J.M. Negative binomial regression 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
24. Hilbe J.M. Modelling count data 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
25. Kaplan N. The norms of citation behavior - Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation 1965, 16(3):179-184.
26. Kline R.B. Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research 2004, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA.
27. Kreiman G., Maunsell J.H.R. Nine criteria for a measure of scientific output. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 2011, 5. 10.3389/fncom.2011.00048.
28. Leydesdorff L., Amsterdamska O. Dimensions of citation analysis. Science Technology & Human Values 1990, 15(3):305-335. 10.1177/016224399001500303.
29. Long J.S., Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata 2014, Stata Press, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA. 3rd ed.
30. Luukkonen T. Why has Latour's theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis. Scientometrics 1997, 38(1):27-37. 10.1007/Bf02461121.
31. Macilwain C. Halt the avalanche of performance metrics. Nature 2013, 500(7462):255.
32. Martin B.R., Irvine J. Assessing basic research - Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy 1983, 12(2):61-90.
33. Marx W., Bornmann L. On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science. Scientometrics 2015, 102(2):1823-1827.
34. Merton R.K. On the shoulders of giants 1965, Free Press, New York, NY, USA.
35. Merton R.K. The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS 1988, 79(4):606-623.
36. Narin F., Stevens K., Whitlow E.S. Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics 1991, 21(3):313-323.
37. Onodera N., Yoshikane F. Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 10.1002/asi.23209.
38. Panel for Review of Best Practices in Assessment of Research, Panel for Review of Best Practices in Assessment of Research, Development Organizations, Laboratory Assessments Board, Division on Engineering, Physical Sciences, & National Research Council Best practices in assessment of research and development organizations 2012, The National Academies Press.
39. Randić M. Citations versus limitations of citations: Beyond Hirsch index. Scientometrics 2009, 80(3):809-818.
40. Small H. On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation. Scientometrics 2004, 60(1):71-79.
41. Thelwall M., Wilson P. Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):963-971. 10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.011.
42. Waltman L., Costas R. F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(3):433-445.
43. Waltman L., van Eck N.J., van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., van Raan A.F.J. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):37-47. 10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001.
44. Wets K., Weedon D., Velterop J. Post-publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000. Learned Publishing 2003, 16(4):249-258.
45. Wouters P., Costas R. Users, narcissism and control - Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century 2012, SURFfoundation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
46. Yu T., Yu G., Li P.-Y., Wang L. Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis. Scientometrics 2014, 101(2):1233-1252. 10.1007/s11192-014-1279-6.