Patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles and the prediction of their citation ranking: A comparison across subjects

Levitt, Jonathan M.

doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1946-y

Cited by 40 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Academic reward structures appear to be designed to favor monodisciplinary research (De Boer et al. 2006) since monodisciplinary papers tend to receive more citations than interdisciplinary papers (Levitt and Thelwall 2008). For researchers in small science systems, collaboration with international academic partners is especially rewarding when their papers are published in more prestigious journals and receive more citations (Kyvik and Larsen 1997).…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

With whom do researchers collaborate and why?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although research collaboration has been studied extensively, we still lack understanding regarding the factors stimulating researchers to collaborate with different kinds of research partners including members of the same research center or group, researchers from the same organization, researchers from other academic and non-academic organizations as well as international partners. Here, we provide an explanation of the emergence of diverse collaborative ties. The theoretical framework used for understanding research collaboration couples scientific and technical human capital embodied in the individual with the social organization and cognitive characteristics of the research field. We analyze survey data collected from Slovenian scientists in four scientific disciplines: mathematics; physics; biotechnology; and sociology. The results show that while individual characteristics and resources are among the strongest predictors of collaboration, very different mechanisms underlie collaboration with different kinds of partners. International collaboration is particularly important for the researchers in small national science systems. Collaboration with colleagues from various domestic organizations presents a vehicle for resource mobilization. Within organizations collaboration reflects the elaborated division of labor in the laboratories and high level of competition between different research groups. These results hold practical implications for policymakers interested in promoting quality research.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

With whom do researchers collaborate and why?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…greater cited half‐life). Levitt and Thelwall () also found field‐wide differences showing that physiology, economics, psychology, and statistics had significant positive relationships but that physics and chemistry had non‐significant relationships. In general, however, positive correlations have been found within many ISI fields, especially in STEM disciplines (Table ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributing factors to long‐term citation count in marine and freshwater biology articles

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have investigated factors thought to affect the total number of citations in various academic disciplines, and some general trends have emerged. However, there are still limited data for many fields, including aquatic sciences. Using papers published in 2003–2005 (n = 785), we investigated marine and freshwater biology articles to identify factors that may contribute to the probability of citation and for cumulative citation counts over 10 years. We found no relationships with probability of citation; however, we found evidence that for those that were cited at least once, cumulative citations were related to several factors. Articles cited by books received more citations than those never cited by books, which we hypothesized to be indicative of the impact an article may have in the field. We also found that articles first cited within 2 years of publication received more cumulative citations than those first cited after 2 years. We found no evidence that self‐citation (as the first citation) had a significant effect on total citations. Our findings were compared with previous studies in other disciplines, and it was found that aquatic science citation patterns are comparable to fields in science and technology but less so to humanities and social sciences.

show abstract

“…For example, see Nederhof & van Raan, 1993;Adams, 2005;Van Leeuwen, 2006;Levitt & Thelwall, 2008, 2011Anderson & Tressler, 2013;Tressler & Anderson, 2012;Bertocchi et al, 2013;Wang, 2013;Stern, 2014;and Burns & Stern, 2015. In general, the findings provide some support for using direct citation counts to papers in the sciences, but little support for doing so in the social sciences. For example, see Nederhof & van Raan, 1993;Adams, 2005;Van Leeuwen, 2006;Levitt & Thelwall, 2008, 2011Anderson & Tressler, 2013;Tressler & Anderson, 2012;Bertocchi et al, 2013;Wang, 2013;Stern, 2014;and Burns & Stern, 2015. In general, the findings provide some support for using direct citation counts to papers in the sciences, but little support for doing so in the social sciences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…see Evidence 2007;Levitt & Thelwall, 2008;THE 2011). see Evidence 2007;Levitt & Thelwall, 2008;THE 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Citation‐Capture Rates for Economics Journals: Do they Differ from Other Disciplines and Does it Matter?

Anderson

Tressler

2015

J of App Econs and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper compares the rate of citation-capture across the social sciences, sciences, business school disciplines and economics. It also explores differences in the rate of citation-capture between leading journals in economics and a representative science category, and between higher and lower ranked economics journals. Short-term citation counting as used in impact factors and journal ranking schemes is shown to favour sciences over social sciences. In addition, within economics, short-term impact factors are systematically biased towards lower ranked journals. Our results imply that the use of leading multidisciplinary journal rankings as a proxy for direct citations introduces an unreported bias in research assessment. Such biases are in addition to those attributable to the well-known differences in the total number of cites received by papers across various disciplines.

show abstract

Patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles and the prediction of their citation ranking: A comparison across subjects

Cited by 40 publications

References 12 publications

With whom do researchers collaborate and why?

With whom do researchers collaborate and why?

Contributing factors to long‐term citation count in marine and freshwater biology articles

Citation‐Capture Rates for Economics Journals: Do they Differ from Other Disciplines and Does it Matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About