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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A review of the top-cited articles in a scientific discipline can identify areas of research that are well established and those in need of further development, and may, as a result, inform and direct future research efforts. Our objective was to identify and characterize the top-cited articles in traumatic brain injury (TBI). We used publically available software to identify the 50 TBI articles with the most lifetime citations, and the 50 TBI articles with the highest annual citation rates. A total of 73 articles were included in this review, with 27 of the 50 papers with the highest annual citation rates common to the cohort of 50 articles with the most lifetime citations. All papers were categorized by their primary topic or focus, namely: predictor of outcome, pathology/natural history, treatment, guidelines and consensus statements, epidemiology, assessment measures, or experimental model of TBI. The mean year of publication of the articles with the most lifetime citations and highest annual citation rates was 1990 ± 14.9 years and 2003 ± 6.7 years, respectively. The 50 articles with the most lifetime citations typically studied predictors of outcome (34.0%, 17/50) and were specific to severe TBI (38.0%, 19/50). In contrast, the most common subject of papers with the highest annual citation rates was treatment of brain injury (22.0%, 11/50), and these papers most frequently investigated mild TBI (36.0%, 18/50). These findings suggest an intensified focus on mild TBI, which is perhaps a response to the dedicated attention these injuries are currently receiving in the context of sports and war, and because of their increasing incidence in developing nations. Our findings also indicate increased focus on treatment of TBI, possibly due to the limited efficacy of current interventions for brain injury. This review provides a cross-sectional summary of some of the most influential articles in TBI, and a bibliometric examination of the current status of TBI research.
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11/2014; 8:879. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00879 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The number of citations received by an article is considered as an objective marker judging the importance and the quality of the research work. The present study aims to study the determinants of citations for research articles published by Sri Lankan authors. Papers were selectively retrieved from the SciVerse Scopus® (Elsevier Properties S.A, USA) database for 10 years from 1st January 1997 to 31st December 2006, of which 50% were selected for inclusion by simple random sampling. The primary outcome measure was citation rate (defined as the number of citations during the 2 subsequent years after publication). Citation data was collected using the SciVerse Scopus® Citation Analyzer and self citations were excluded. A linear regression analysis was performed with 'number of citations' as the continuous dependent variable and other independent variables. The number of publications has steadily increased during the period of study. Over three quarter of papers were published in international journals. More than half of publications were research studies (55.3%), and most of the research studies were descriptive cross-sectional studies (27.1%). The mean number of citations within 2 years of publication was 1.7 and 52.1% of papers were not cited within the first two years of publication. The mean number of citations for collaborative studies (2.74) was significantly higher than that of non-collaborative studies (0.66). The mean number of citations did not significantly change depending on whether the publication had a positive result (2.08) or not (2.92) and was also not influenced by the presence (2.30) or absence (1.99) of the main study conclusion in the title of the article. In the linear regression model, the journal rank, number of authors, conducting the study abroad, being a research study or systematic review/meta-analysis and having regional and/or international collaboration all significantly increased the number of citations. The journal rank, number of authors, conducting the study abroad, being a research study or systematic review/meta-analysis and having regional and/or international collaboration all significantly increased the number of citations. However, the presence of a positive result in the study did not influence the citation rate.
    SpringerPlus 01/2014; 3(1):140. DOI:10.1186/2193-1801-3-140
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Measures of research productivity are increasingly used to determine how research should be evaluated and funding decisions made. In psychiatry, citation patterns within and between countries are not known, and whether these differ by choice of citation metric.Method In this study, we examined publication characteristics and citation practices in articles published in 50 Web of Science indexed psychiatric and relevant clinical neurosciences journals, between January 2004 and December 2009 comprising 51,072 records that produced 375,962 citations. We compared citation patterns, including self-citations, between countries using standard x2 tests.ResultsWe found that most publications came from the USA, with Germany being second and UK third in productivity. USA articles received most citations and the highest citation rate with an average 11.5 citations per article. The UK received the second highest absolute number of citations, but came fourth by citation rate (9.7 citations/article), after the Netherlands (11.4 citations/article) and Canada (9.8 citations/article).Within the USA, Harvard University published most articles and these articles were the most cited, on average 20.0 citations per paper. In Europe, UK institutions published and were cited most often. The Institute of Psychiatry/Kings College London was the leading institution in terms of number of published records and overall citations, while Oxford University had the highest citation rate (18.5 citations/record).There were no differences between the self-citation practices of American and European researchers.Articles that examined some aspect of treatment in psychiatry were the most published. In terms of diagnosis, papers about schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were the most published and the most cited.Conclusions We found large differences between and within countries in terms of their research productivity in psychiatry and clinical neuroscience. In addition, the ranking of countries and institutions differed widely by whether productivity was assessed by total research records published, overall citations these received, or citations per paper. The choice of measures of scientific output could be important in determining how research output translates into decisions about resource allocation.
    BMC Psychiatry 12/2014; 14(1):332. DOI:10.1186/s12888-014-0332-6 · 2.24 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014