The effect of the “very important paper” (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact: A propensity score matching analysis

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 68, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 2139-2153

  Mutz, Rüdiger ^a   Wolbring, Tobias ^b   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^c  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECTS; CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS; CITATION IMPACT; HIGH QUALITY PAPERS; INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS; PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING; SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; TREATMENT GROUP;

PAPER;

CONTROL GROUP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PROPENSITY SCORE; WEB OF SCIENCE;

EID: 84978272045     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23701     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aksnes, D.W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.
2. Allison, P. (2012). Logistic regression using SAS: Theory and application (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
3. Austin, P.C. (2009). Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. International Journal of Biostatistics, 5(1), 13.
4. Austin, P.C. (2011a). Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 30(11), 1292–1301.
5. Austin, P.C. (2011b). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424.
6. Austin, P.C. (2011c). Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10(7), 150–161.
7. Austin, P.C. (2014). The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Statistics in Medicine, 33(7), 1242–1258.
8. Austin, P.C., & Small, D.S. (2014). The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: A simulation study. Statistics in Medicine, 33(24), 4306–4319.
9. Bhapkar, V.P. (1966). A note on the equivalence of two test criteria for hypotheses in categorical data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61(313), 228–235.
10. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009a). Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics, 18(4), 262–272.
11. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009b). The luck of the referee draw: Would it make a difference if a journal editor exchanged one review for another. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 117–125.
12. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009c). Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1841–1852.
13. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010a). Citation speed as a measure to predict the attention an article receives: An investigation of the validity of editorial decisions at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 83–88.
14. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010b). How long is the peer review process for journal manuscripts? A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Chima, 64(1-2), 72–77.
15. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010c). The validity of staff editors' initial evaluations of manuscripts: A case study of Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Scientometrics, 85(3), 681–687.
16. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Rahm, E., Thor, A., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry-citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. Journal of Informetrics, 3(1), 27–35.
17. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of interrater reliability and its determinants. PLos One, 5(12), e14331.
18. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 93–102.
19. Boubaid, H. (2011). Revisiting citation aging: A model for citation distribution and life-cycle prediction. Scientometrics, 88(1), 199–211.
20. Cameron, A.C., & Trivedi, P.K. (1998). Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Cano, V., & Lind, N.C. (1991). Citation life cycles of ten citation classics. Scientometrics, 22(2), 297–312.
22. Cochran, W.G. (1968). The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 24(2), 295–313.
23. Colugnati, F.A.B., Firpo, S., de Castro, P.F.D., Sepulveda, J.E., & Salles, S.L.M. (2014). A propensity score approach in the impact evaluation on scientific production in Brazilian biodiversity research: the BIOTA Program. Scientometrics, 101(1), 85–107.
24. Daniel, H.-D. (1993). Guardians of science. Weinheim, Germany: VCH.
25. Didegah, F., & Theiwall, F. (2013). Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1055–1064.
26. Falkinger, J. (2008). Limited attention as a scarce resource in information-rich economies. Economic Journal, 118(8), 1596–1620.
27. Franck, G. (2002). The scientific economy of attention: A novel approach to the collective rationality of science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 3–26.
28. Frangakis, C.E., & Rubin, D.B. (2002). Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics, 58(1), 21–29.
29. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics ans science policy. Scientometrics, 67(2), 263–277.
30. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H.F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193.
31. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21(37), 37–53.
32. Gölitz, P. (1999). What shape is chemistry in at the end of the second millennium? Angewandte Chemie - International Edition, 38(1/2), 1–252.
33. Gölitz, P. (2001). Minireviews, referees, journals, and the future. Angewandte Chemie - International Edition, 40(13), 2365–2366.
34. Grimm, K.J., & Ram, N. (2009). Nonlinear growth models in Mplus and SAS. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 676–701.
35. Guo, S., & Fraser, M.W. (2015). Propensity score analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
36. Hamaker, E.L., van Hattum, P., Kuiper, R.M., & Hoijtink, H. (2011). Model selection based on information criteria in multilevel modeling. In J.J. Hox & J.K. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 231–256). New York: Routledge.
37. Harder, V.S., Stuart, E.A., & Anthony, J.C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measure covariate balance to test causal association in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 234–249.
38. Hedeker, D., Berbaum, M., & Mermelstein, R. (2006). Location-scale models for multilevel ordinal data: Between- and within-subjects variance modeling. Journal of Probability and Statistical Sciences, 4(1), 1–20.
39. Hilbe, J.M. (2007). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. Holland, P.W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–970.
41. Hosmer, D.W., & Lemeshow, S. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
42. Laband, D.N., & Piette, M.J. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy, 102 (1), 194–203.
43. Lanehart, R.E., Rodriguez de Gil, P., Kim, E.S., Bellara, A.P., Kromrey, J.D., & Lee, R.S. (2012). Propensity score analysis and assessment of propensity score approaches using SAS procedures. In SAS Institute. 2012 (Ed.), Proceedings of the SAS® Global Forum 2012 Conference (pp. 1–11). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
44. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.
45. Liang, K.Y., & Zeger, S.L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22.
46. Llyod-Smith, J.O. (2007). Maximum likelihood estimation of the negative binomial dispersion parameter for highly overdispersed data, with applications to infectious diseases. PLoS One, 2(2), e180.
47. Long, J.S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
48. Luellen, J.K., Shadish, W.R., & Clark, M.H. (2005). Propensity scores: An introduction and experimental test. Evaluation Review, 29(6), 530–558.
49. Marx, W. (2001). Angewandte Chemie in light of the science citation index. Angewandte Chemie - International Edition, 40(1), 139–143.
50. Medoff, M.H. (2003). Article placement and market signalling. Applied Economics Letters, 10(8), 479–482.
51. Michayluk, D., & Zurbregg, R. (2014). Do lead articles signal higher quality in the digital age? Evidence from finance journals. Scientometrics, 98, 961–973.
52. Moed, H.F., VanLeeuwen, T.N., & Reedjik, J. (1996). A critical analysis of the journal impact factors of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society — Inaccuracies in published impact factors based on overall citations only. Scientometrics, 37(1), 105–116.
53. Mullahy, Y. (1978). Specification and testing of some modified count data models. Journal of Econometrics, 33(3), 341–365.
54. Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). Heterogeneity of interrater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: A general estimating equations approach. PLos One, 7(10), e48509.
55. Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012a). The generalized propensity score methodology for estimating unbiased journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 92(2), 377–390.
56. Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012b). Skewed citation distributions and bias factors: Solutions to two core problems with the journal impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 169–176.
57. Neuhaus, C., Marx, W., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts: A case study on the limitations of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 176–183.
58. Panik, M.J. (2014). Growth curve modeling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
59. Parolo, P.D.B., Pan, R.K., Gosh, R., Huberman, B.A., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2015). Attention decay in science. Working paper. Aalto University School of Science.
60. Peters, H.P.F., & van Raan, A.F.J. (1994). On determinants of citation scores: A case study in chemical engineering. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 39–49.
61. Rosenbaum, P.R. (2010). Design of observational studies. New York: Springer.
62. Rubin, D.B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469), 322–331.
63. Rubin, D.B. (2006). Matched sampling for causal effects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64. Ruiqiang, T., Changqing, Y., Yuantano, P., Yishan, W., Cheng, S., & Junpeng, Y. (2015). Do first-articles in a journal issue get more cited? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics (ISSI), Instanbul, Turkey.
65. SAS Institute. (2012). SAS/STAT 12.1 user's guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
66. Schwert, G.W. (1992). The journal of financial economics: A retrospective evaluation (1974-1991). Journal of Financial Economics, 33(3), 369–424.
67. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
68. Shadish, W.R., Luellen, J.K., & Clark, M.H. (2006). Propensity scores and quasi-experiments: A testimony to the practical side of Lee Sechrest. In R.R. Bootzin & P.E. McKnight (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology - psychological measurement and evaluation (pp. 143–157). Washington, DC: APA.
69. Stuart, E.A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–24.
70. Thoemmes, F.J., & Kim, E.S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(1), 90–118.
71. Tjur, T. (2009). Coefficients of determination in logistic regression models - A new proposal: The coefficient of discrimination. The American Statistician, 63(4), 366–372.
72. Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94, 851–872.
73. Zeger, S.L., & Liang, K.Y. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics, 42, 121–130.