Impact of Article Page Count and Number of Authors on Citations in Disability Related Fields: A Systematic Review Article
,
Abstract
Background: Citation metrics and total publications in a field has become the gold standard for rating researchers and viability of a field. Hence, stimulating demand for citation has led to a search for useful strategies to improve performance metric index. Meanwhile, title, abstract and morphologic qualities of the articles attract researchers to scientific publications. Yet, there is relatively little understanding of the citation trend in disability related fields. We aimed to provide an insight into the factors associated with citation increase in this field. Additionally, we tried to know at what page number an article might appear attractive to disability researchers needs. Thus, our focus is placed on the article page count and the number of authors contributing to the fields per article.
Methods: To this end, we evaluated the quantitative characteristics of top cited articles in the fields with a total citation (³50) in the Web of Science (WoS) database. Using one-way independent ANOVA, data extracted spanning a period of 1980-2015 were analyzed, while the non-parametric data analysis uses Kruskal-Walis test.
Results: Articles with 11 to 20 pages attract more citations followed by those within the range of zero to 10. Articles with upward 21 pages are the least cited. Surprisingly, articles with more than two authors are significantly (P<0.05) less cited and the citation decreases as the number of authors increased.
Conclusion: Collaborative studies enjoy wider utilization and more citation, yet discounted merit of additional pages and limited collaborative research in disability field is revealed in this study.
Donaldson MR, Cooke SJ (2013). Scientific publications: Moving beyond quality and quantity toward influence. Bio Sci, bit007.
Bruns SB, Stern DI (2015). Research assessment using early citation information. Scientometrics,1-19.
Falagas ME, Zarkali A, Karageorgopoulos DE, Bardakas V, Mavros MN (2013). The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals. PLoS One, 8:e49476.
O'Sullivan KE, Kelly JC, Hurley JP (2015). The 100 most cited publications in cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis. Ir J Med Sci, 184:91-9.
Gul S, Nisa NT, Shah TA, Shah MUA, Wani AB (2015). Research output on Lavender, 2008–2012. Eur J Integr Med, 7 (5):460–466.
Cobo MJ, Martínez MA, Gutiérrez-Salcedo M, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2015). 25years at Knowledge-Based Systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowl-Basedb Syst, 80:3-13.
Lokker C, McKibbon KA, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB (2008). Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. BMJ, 336:655-657.
Judge TA, Cable DM, Colbert AE, Rynes SL (2007). What causes a management article to be cited—article, author, or journal? Acad Manage J, 50:491-506.
Doslu M, Bingol HO (2015). Context sensitive article ranking with citation context analysis. Scientometrics,1-19.
Willis DL, Bahler CD, Neuberger MM, Dahm P (2011). Predictors of citations in the urological literature. BJU Int, 107:1876-1880.
Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP (2005). Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA, 293:2362-2366.
Ekeroma AJ, Shulruf B, McCowan L, Hill AG, Kenealy T (2016). Development and use of a research productivity assessment tool for clinicians in low-resource settings in the Pacific Islands: a Delphi study. Health Res Policy Syst, 14:9.
Kim H-E, Jiang X, Kim J, Ohno-Machado L (2011). Trends in biomedical informatics: most cited topics from recent years. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 18 Suppl 1:i166-70.
Norris M, Oppenheim C, Rowland F (2008). The citation advantage of open‐access articles. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 59:1963-1972.
Guns R, Rousseau R (2014). Recommending research collaborations using link prediction and random forest classifiers. Scientometrics, 101:1461-1473.
Gilbert GN (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Soc Stud Sci, 113-122.
Ball P (2008). A longer paper gathers more citations. Nature, 455:274-275.
Mavros MN, Bardakas V, Rafailidis PI, Sardi TA, Demetriou E, Falagas ME (2013). Comparison of number of citations to full original articles versus brief reports. Scientometrics, 94:203-206.
Subramanyam K (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration. J Inf Sci, 6:33-38.
Laband DN (1986). Article popularity. Econ Inq, 24:173-180.
Wagner CS, Leydesdorff L (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res Policy, 34:1608-1618.
Shadgan B, Roig M, HajGhanbari B, Reid WD (2010). Top-cited articles in rehabilitation. Arch Phy Med Rehab, 91:806-815.
Roberts D (1992). Coverage by four information services of the core journals of rehabilitation and related topics. Scand J Rehab Med, 24:167-173.
Eshraghi A, Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Ali S, Shadgan B (2013). 100 top-cited scientific papers in limb prosthetics. Biomed Eng Online, 12:119.
Bohannon RW, Gibson DF (1986). Citation analysis of physical therapy. Phys Ther, 66:540-541.
Wakiji EM (1997). Mapping the literature of physical therapy. Bulletin Of The Medical Library Association, 85:284.
Liasidou A (2016). Disabling discourses and human rights law: a case study based on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Discourse-Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37:149-162.
Oliver M (1990). The individual and social models of disability. Joint workshop of the living options Group and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 45 No 9 (2016) | |
| Section | Review Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Article page count Bibliometric Citation counts Disability Number of authors | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
