The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet

Kostoff, Ronald N.

doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1573-7

Cited by 61 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are consistent with previous studies (Didegah & Thelwall, 2013;Bornmann, Schier, Marx, & Daniel, 2012;Haslam et al, 2008;Kostoff, 2007;Boyack & Klavans, 2005;Peters & van Raan, 1994).…”

Section: The Impact and The Number Of Referencessupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The same result was found in Medicine: the longer the abstract, the higher the number of citations to the medical articles (Kostoff, 2007). Perhaps an extensive abstract is a more complete representation of the paper, providing readers with more details and enabling them to decide about the paper's usefulness and this explains why an article with a longer abstract may receive more citations.…”

Section: Abstract Lengthsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…The same result was found for publications in The Lancet, a leading journal in General Medicine. Longer medical papers receiving more citations also have many references and this may be another influence (Kostoff, 2007). Medical papers with longer abstracts have also been found to receive more citations (Kostoff, 2007) whereas papers with longer titles in Psychology receive fewer citations (Haslam et al, 2008).…”

Section: Size Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Authors providing more (Haslam et al, 2008;Kostoff, 2007;Peters & van Raan, 1994) references attract more citations. In a comparison between four subject areas (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology & Biochemistry), the number of references was found to positively and significantly correlate with the number of citations but the percentage increase in citations for each additional reference was not determined (Vieira & Gomes, 2010).…”

Section: Size Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

Didegah

Thelwall

2013

Journal of Informetrics

265

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assesses whether eleven factors associate with higher impact research: individual, institutional and international collaboration; journal and reference impacts; abstract readability; reference and keyword totals; paper, abstract and title lengths. Authors may have some control over these factors and hence this information may help them to conduct and publish higher impact research. These factors have been previously researched but with partially conflicting findings. A simultaneous assessment of these eleven factors for Biology & Biochemistry, Chemistry and Social Sciences used a single negative binomial-logit hurdle model estimating the percentage change in the mean citation counts per unit of increase or decrease in the predictor variables. The journal Impact Factor was found to significantly associate with increased citations in all three areas. The impact and the number of cited references and their average citation impact also significantly associate with higher article citation impact. Individual and international teamwork give a citation advantage in Biology & Biochemistry and Chemistry but inter-institutional teamwork is not important in any of the three subject areas. Abstract readability is also not significant or of no practical significance. Among the article size features, abstract length significantly associates with increased citations but the number of keywords, title length and paper length are insignificant or of no practical significance. In summary, at least some aspects of collaboration, journal and document properties significantly associate with higher citations. The results provide new and particularly strong statistical evidence that the authors should consider publishing in high impact journals, ensure that they do not omit relevant references, engage in the widest possible team working, when appropriate, and write extensive abstracts. A new finding is that whilst is seems to be useful to collaborate and to collaborate internationally, there seems to be no particular need to collaborate with other institutions within the same country. IntroductionDuring an academic career, scholars make numerous choices about the type of research to conduct, how to present their research, and where to submit it for publication. It seems logical that researchers should aim to conduct the highest possible impact research in order to make the most of their talents and opportunities. Whilst the key decisions for this aim are likely to be specific to the topics researched, there are some more peripheral factors that are nevertheless relevant and that academics may also need to consider in order to maximise the impact of their efforts.Citation counts are widely acknowledged as the main scientific research impact indicator and empirical studies have been carried out to seek associations between citation counts and various objective and easily measurable properties of research. These include the impact of the publishing journal (Boyack & Klavans, 2005), collaboration (Gazni & Didegah, 2010)...

show abstract

Section: The Impact and The Number Of Referencessupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Abstract Lengthsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Size Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Size Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

Didegah

Thelwall

2013

Journal of Informetrics

265

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Freitas et al 2008). The likely influence of larger sample sizes on the citation frequency of papers has previously been acknowledged (Padial et al 2010), and furthermore is illustrated for medical papers (Kostoff 2007). These results therefore highlight the influence of sample size on the impact of papers, even when sample size ranges are within ranges typical for ecological studies.…”

Section: Scientific Impactsupporting

confidence: 55%

Trends in tagging of marine mammals: a review of marine mammal biologging studies

McIntyre¹

2014

African Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

science of biologging is somewhat older and is recognised to have started as early as the 1940s, when depth gauges were used on whales and seals (Scholander 1940). After Scholander, the earliest biologging devices used on marine animals are generally recognised to be the maximum-depth recorder (DeVries and Wohlschlag 1964) and time-depth recorders (Kooyman 1965), all of which were deployed on Weddell seals Leptonychotes weddellii (Evans et al. 2013).Technological advances are increasingly allowing for the miniaturisation of devices, as well as the incorporation of more sophisticated sensors into animal-borne instruments. For example, the use of fast-loc GPS technology (e.g. Dragon et al. 2012a), accelerometers (Naito et al. 2010 and camera systems (e.g. Naito et al. 2013) is allowing more detailed and fine-scale assessments of marine animal movements and behaviour. Furthermore, the addition of various sensors to biologging instruments is contributing increasingly to our understanding of ocean physical properties (Fedak 2013) and how marine mammals adjust their behaviour in relation to them (e.g. McIntyre et al. 2011a;Jaud et al. 2012;Bestley et al. 2013). Although the technological advances are clear, it is of interest to know how these technologies are applied in scientific studies and what specific questions are being addressed.Biologging devices are currently used in scientific studies of numerous taxa, including terrestrial mammals (e.g. Hetem et al. 2012;McFarland et al. 2013), reptiles (e.g. Dubois et al. 2009;Watanabe et al. 2013), birds (e.g. Dean et al. 2013;Phipps et al. 2013), fish (e.g. Bonfil et al. 2005Yasuda et al. 2013) and even invertebrates (e.g. Stewart et al. 2012;Watts et al. 2012). Given the obvious difficulties in observing animals at sea directly, the use of biologging technologies is ideally suited for studies involving marine animals, particularly semi-aquatic species that haul out on land, thereby providing opportunities for the deployment of instruments. Marine biologists (and marine mammalogists in particular) are increasingly making use of biologging technology. This is exemplified by the study species reported in the titles and abstracts of presentations (n  Trends in tagging of marine mammals: a review of marine mammal biologging studies T McIntyre Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, South Africa e-mail: tmcintyre@zoology.up.ac.zaThe number of scientific papers resulting from biologging instruments deployed on marine mammals is increasing as improved technologies result in smaller devices and improved sensor-, storage-and transmission capabilities. I undertook a comprehensive review of papers resulting from biologging deployments on free-ranging marine mammals between 1965 and 2013 (n = 620) to summarise where (e.g. on which species, as well as in which geographic areas) deployment efforts were focused, the impacts of the resulting papers, and where there are shortcomings in the literature. Species-, sex-and age-class...

show abstract

Structural Variation

2014

The Fitness of Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet

Cited by 61 publications

References 10 publications

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

Trends in tagging of marine mammals: a review of marine mammal biologging studies

Structural Variation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About