Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature.

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., Canada.
Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie (Impact Factor: 1.27). 05/2007; 50(2):119-23.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Investigators aim to publish their work in top journals in an effort to achieve the greatest possible impact. One measure of impact is the number of times a paper is cited after its publication in a journal. We conducted a review of the highest impact clinical orthopedic journal (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume [J Bone Joint Surg Am]) to determine factors associated with subsequent citations within 3 years of publication.
We conducted citation counts for all original articles published in J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000 (12 issues). We used regression analysis to identify factors associated with citation counts.
We identified 137 original articles in the J Bone Joint Surg Am. There were 749 subsequent citations within 3 years of publication of these articles. Study design was the only variable associated with subsequent citation rate. Meta-analyses, randomized trials and basic science papers received significantly more citations (mean 15.5, 9.3 and 7.6, respectively) than did observational studies (mean retrospective 5.3, prospective 4.2) and case reports (mean 1.5) (p = 0.01). These study designs were also significantly more likely to be cited in the general medical literature (p = 0.02).
Our results suggest that basic science articles and clinical articles with greater methodological safeguards against bias (randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses) are cited more frequently than are clinical studies with less rigorous study designs (observational studies and case reports).

Download full-text


Available from: Jason W Busse, Jul 01, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify the scientific and nonscientific factors associated with rates of citation in the orthopedic literature. All original clinical articles published in three general orthopedics journals between July 2002 and December 2003 were reviewed. Information was collected on variables plausibly related to rates of citation, including scientific and nonscientific factors. The number of citations at 5 years was ascertained and linear regression was used to identify factors associated with rates of citation. In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with increased rates of citation at 5 years were high level of evidence (22.2 citations for level I or II vs. 10.8 citations for level III or IV; P=0.0001), large sample size (18.8 citations for sample size of 100 or more vs. 7.9 citations for sample size of 25 or fewer; P<0.0001), multiple institutions (15.2 citations for two or more centers vs. 11.1 citations for single center; P=0.023), self-reported conflict of interest disclosure involving a nonprofit organization (17.4 citations for nonprofit disclosure vs. 10.6 citations for no disclosure; P=0.027), and self-reported conflict of interest disclosure involving a for-profit company (26.1 citations for for-profit disclosure vs. 10.6 citations for no disclosure; P=0.011). High level of evidence, large sample size, representation from multiple institutions, and conflict of interest disclosure are associated with higher rates of citation in orthopedics.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 10/2010; 64(3):331-8. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.019 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Citation frequency has been considered a biased surrogate of publication merit. However, previous studies on this subject were based on small sample sizes and were entirely based on null-hypothesis significance testing. Here we evaluated the relative effects of different predictors on citation frequency of ecological articles using an information theory framework designed to evaluate multiple competing hypotheses. Supposed predictors of citation frequency (e.g., number of authors, length of articles) accounted for a low fraction of the total variation. We argue that biases concerning citation are minor in ecology and further studies that attempt to quantify the scientific relevance of an article, aiming to make further relationships with citation, are needed to advance our understanding of why an article is cited.
    Scientometrics 05/2010; 85:1-12. DOI:10.1007/s11192-010-0231-7 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source