Characteristics Associated with Citation Rate of the Medical Literature

Division of Population Health Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 02/2007; 2(5):e403. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000403
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The citation rate for articles is viewed as a measure of their importance and impact; however, little is known about what features of articles are associated with higher citation rate.
We conducted a cohort study of all original articles, regardless of study methodology, published in the Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine, from October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. We identified 328 articles. Two blinded, independent reviewers extracted, in duplicate, nine variables from each article, which were analyzed in both univariable and multivariable linear least-squares regression models for their association with the annual rate of citations received by the article since publication. A two-way interaction between industry funding and an industry-favoring result was tested and found to be significant (p = 0.02). In our adjusted analysis, the presence of industry funding and an industry-favoring result was associated with an increase in annual citation rate of 25.7 (95% confidence interval, 8.5 to 42.8) compared to the absence of both industry funding and industry-favoring results. Higher annual rates of citation were also associated with articles dealing with cardiovascular medicine (13.3 more; 95% confidence interval, 3.9 to 22.3) and oncology (12.6 more; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 24.0), articles with group authorship (11.1 more; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 19.5), larger sample size and journal of publication.
Large trials, with group authorship, industry-funded, with industry-favoring results, in oncology or cardiology were associated with greater subsequent citations.

Download full-text


Available from: Jason W Busse, Aug 11, 2015
  • Source
    • "These limitations may be amplified in lower impact journals as many readers place greater credence and emphasis on articles published in journals with higher impact factor (IF) [10]. However, it is accepted that citation rates may be violated and inflated for a variety of reasons [11] [12], What is new? "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low-impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in Core Clinical Journals between July 1 and December 31, 2012. We evaluated the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Over the 6-month period, 327 interventional systematic reviews were identified with a mean AMSTAR score of 63.3% (standard deviation, 17.1%), when converted to a percentage scale. We identified deficiencies in relation to a number of quality criteria including delineation of excluded studies and assessment of publication bias. We found that SRs published in higher impact journals were undertaken more rigorously with higher percentage AMSTAR scores (per IF unit: β = 0.68%; 95% confidence interval: 0.32, 1.04; P < 0.001), a discrepancy likely to be particularly relevant when differences in IF are large. Methodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 04/2014; 67(7). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.002 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Many studies of citation patterns are confined to restricted samples (e.g., Kulkarni et al (2007) who examined citations to articles in three journals). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Analysis of 131 publications during 2006–2007 by staff of the School of Environmental Science and Management at Southern Cross University reveals that the journal impact factor, article length and type (i.e., article or review), and journal self-citations affect the citations accrued to 2012. Authors seeking to be well cited should aim to write comprehensive and substantial review articles, and submit them to journals with a high impact factor which has previously carried articles on the topic. Nonetheless, strategic placement of articles is complementary to, and no substitute for careful crafting of good quality research. Evidence remains equivocal regarding the contribution of an author's prior publication success (h-index) and of open-access journals.
    Journal of Informetrics 04/2013; 7(2):265-271. DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.009 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "We considered citation counts during a given time period instead of all citations (adjusting for time since publication) as in some previous studies [11] [15]. We preferred to focus on this variable because citation patterns may vary over time partly because of changing availability of journals, increasing performance of searching engines, and publications of review articles or meta-analysis (cited instead of the original article). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Statistically significant studies may be cited more than negative studies on the same topic. We aimed to assess here whether such citation bias is present across the medical literature. We conducted a cohort study of the association between statistical significance and citations. We selected all therapeutic intervention studies included in meta-analyses published between January and March 2010 in the Cochrane database, and retrieved citation counts of all individual studies using ISI Web of Knowledge. The association between the statistical significance of each study and the number of citations it received between 2008 and 2010 was assessed in mixed Poisson models. We identified 89 research questions addressed in 458 eligible articles. Significant studies were cited twice as often as nonsignificant studies (multiplicative effect of significance: 2.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.38-3.33). This association was partly because of the higher impact factor of journals where significant studies are published (adjusted multiplicative effect of significance: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.51). A citation bias favoring significant results occurs in medical research. As a consequence, treatments may seem more effective to the readers of medical literature than they really are.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 03/2013; 66(3):296-301. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015 · 5.48 Impact Factor
Show more