Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

Abstract

Objective This study is aimed to identify predictors of citation rate of original research published in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ). Methods A search of MEDLINE was conducted from January 1, 2000-June 30, 2013 to identify all studies published in the CARJ. Original research studies were included. Reviews, pictorial essays, guidelines, case studies, case series, and original studies with a sample size <10 were excluded. Variables assessed for association with citation rate included number of authors, study design, sample size, multi-institutional study, multi-national study, study type, presence of statistically significant result, presence of funding, and number of references. Statistical analysis was completed using linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients ( r). Results A total of 714 studies were published in CARJ, of which 181 were original research publications that were cited a total of 1517 times. Twelve original research studies were uncited, while the most-cited one was cited 58 times. Sample size ( r = 0.177, P = .017) and number of references ( r = 0.164, P = .028) demonstrated statistically significant weak positive correlations with citation rate. Number of authors, study design, setting, statistically significant results, and funding were not associated with citation rate. Conclusion Only a very small number of original research studies published at the CARJ remained uncited 5 or more years after the publication. Sample size and number of references were identified as significant, but weak predictors of citation rate in CARJ.

Predictors of Citation Rates in High-Impact Glioblastoma Clinical Trials

“…In this review, no significant link was found between citation rates of GBM clinical trials and the numbers of authors, centers, countries, and references. A similar finding was reported by other studies [ 2 , 20 ]. However, in the literature, several publications have identified the number of authors as a significant predictor of citation [ 1 , 7 , 15 ].…”

“…In this analysis, a significant association with the study population was observed in both primary and secondary analysis, implying that the study population was a firm predictor of citation rates in GBM clinical trials. Similar findings relating to the study population were reported by other studies [ 2 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 20 ]. A significant correlation with the trial phase was also seen in both primary and secondary analysis, indicating that being a phase III trial was a solid predictor of citation rates.…”

“…Citation rates were not affected by the number of arms, status of GBM, and duration of the trial. The lack of impact of certain features of study designs on citation numbers was also reported by others [2,20].…”

“…Significant relationships have also been reported between the international and national collaboration of authors, the number of organizations, the number of countries producing the paper, and the frequency of citations [1,2]. A positive relationship with the number of references was reported by some studies [20]. Furthermore, some studies suggested that a proportion of variance in the number of citations an article receives can be explained by seemingly superficial factors unrelated to the content of the article such as the title, the number of authors, the number of references, the number of sentences in the abstract, the presence of a colon in the title, and the number of pages [24,25].…”

“…Several other potential predictors were not addressed in this study that were examined by other studies. These include increasing visibility through open access [ 5 ], selection for press release [ 26 ], funding [ 14 , 20 ], disclosure of conflict of interest [ 7 ], statistically significant results [ 20 ], and the trial being referenced in ClinicalTrials.gov [ 27 ].…”