|
|
|
| How Citation Dynamics Change: The Effect of Literature Content Characteristics |
| Li Lingying1, Min Chao1, Yan Xiaoran2 |
1.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, Zhijiang Lab, Hangzhou 311121 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The citation performance of an article is determined by its internal characteristics and external environment. This study focuses on literature characteristics, such as research quality, innovation level, and content diversity. Citation peak is the most influential stage in the process of citation; hence, apart from traditional citation counts, we also explored the impact of literature characteristics on citation peak. We conducted four regression models on biomedical literature in PubMed, in which the dependent variables were total citation numbers, peak counts, peak arrival time, and peak height. Research quality was measured by a peer review database, Faculty Opinions (F1000), and the innovation level were determined by experts in F1000. Content diversity was expressed by the distance of MeSH terms. The study results indicate that research quality, innovation level, and content diversity contribute to total citation numbers. Diversity can promote article gain more citation peaks. Peak arrival time is significantly influenced by research quality and content diversity. Research quality can decrease peak height, which makes citation curve smoother.
|
|
Received: 12 October 2020
|
|
|
|
1 Tahamtan I, Safipour Afshar A, Ahamdzadeh K. Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(3): 1195-1225.
2 M?rtensson P, Fors U, Wallin S B, et al. Evaluating research: a multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(3): 593-603.
3 Patterson M S, Harris S. The relationship between reviewers' quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003-2005[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 80(2): 343-349.
4 Ivarsson M, Gorschek T. A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations[J]. Empirical Software Engineering, 2011, 16(3): 365-395.
5 Faculty of 1000 Prime: FFa, ratings, reviews[EB/OL]. [2020-03-31]. https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/f1000-ffa-ratings-reviews/.
6 Huggett S. F1000 Journal Rankings: an alternative way to evaluate the scientific impact of scholarly communications[J]. Research Trends, 2012, 26: 7-11.
7 Mohammadi E, Thelwall M. Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 97(2): 383-395.
8 Allen L, Jones C, Dolby K, et al. Looking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs[J]. PLoS One, 2009, 4(6): e5910.
9 Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with para-textual factors and over time[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2015, 9(3): 419-429.
10 Kuhn T S. The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. 3rd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
11 H?yrynen M. Breakthrough research: funding for high-risk research at the Academy of Finland[R]. Academy of Finland, 2007.
12 van Raan A F J. On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of science[J]. Scientometrics, 2000, 47(2): 347-362.
13 Savov P, Jatowt A, Nielek R. Identifying breakthrough scientific papers[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2020, 57(2): 102168.
14 Bornmann L. Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: a study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8(4): 935-950.
15 Du J, Tang X L, Wu Y S. The effects of research level and article type on the differences between citation metrics and F1000 recommendations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(12): 3008-3021.
16 Enduri M K, Reddy I V, Jolad S. Does diversity of papers affect their citations? Evidence from American Physical Society journals[C]// Proceedings of the 2015 11th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems. IEEE, 2015: 505-511.
17 Rafols I, Meyer M. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 263-287.
18 Schmidt M, Gl?ser J, Havemann F, et al. A methodological study for measuring the diversity of science[C]// Proceedings of the International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh COLLNET Meeting. OAI, 2006.
19 Zhou J, Shui Y X, Peng S W, et al. MeSHSim: an R/Bioconductor package for measuring semantic similarity over MeSH headings and MEDLINE documents[J]. Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. 2015 ,13(6): 1542002.
20 Bulskov H, Knappe R, Andreasen T. On measuring similarity for conceptual querying[C]// Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Flexible Query Answering Systems. Heidelberg: Springer, 2002, 2522: 100-111.
21 Buela-Casal G, Zych I. Analysis of the relationship between the number of citations and the quality evaluated by experts in psychology journals[J]. Psicothema, 2010, 22(2): 270-276.
22 Molléri J S, Petersen K, Mendes E. Towards understanding the relation between citations and research quality in software engineering studies[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 117(3): 1453-1478.
23 Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. Of Nobel class: a citation perspective on high impact research authors[J]. Theoretical Medicine, 1992, 13(2): 117-135.
24 Wagner C S, Horlings E, Whetsell T A, et al. Do Nobel laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(7): e0134164.
25 Varga A. Novelty and foreseeing research trends: the case of astrophysics and astronomy[J]. The Astrophysical Journal Letters Supplement Series, 2018, 236(1): 21.
26 Bessi A, Zollo F, Del Vicario M, et al. Everyday the same picture: popularity and content diversity[C]// Proceedings of the International Workshop on Complex Networks. Cham: Springer, 2017: 225-236.
27 Chakraborty T, Kumar S, Goyal P, et al. Towards a stratified learning approach to predict future citation counts[C]// Proceedings of the 14th IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. IEEE, 2014: 351-360.
28 Chen C M. Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(3): 431-449.
29 Fox C W, Paine C E T, Sauterey B. Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals[J]. Ecology and Evolution, 2016, 6(21): 7717-7726.
30 Falagas M E, Zarkali A, Karageorgopoulos D E, et al. The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(2): e49476.
31 Vanclay J K. Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(2): 265-271.
32 Patsopoulos N A, Analatos A A, Ioannidis J P A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences[J]. JAMA, 2005, 293(19): 2362-2366.
33 Hsu J W, Huang D W. Correlation between impact and collaboration[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 86(2): 317-324.
34 Sonnenwald D H. Scientific collaboration[J]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2007, 41(1): 643-681.
35 Ronda-Pupo G A, Katz J S. The power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals: a scale-independent approach[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(10): 2565-2572.
36 Bornmann L. Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(4): 1036-1047.
37 Didegah F, Thelwall M. Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(5): 1055-1064.
38 Polanyi M. The republic of science: its political and economic theory[J]. Minerva, 1962, 1: 54-73.
39 Andersen H, Barker P, Chen X. The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
40 Wang D S, Song C M, Barabási A L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154): 127-132.
41 Huutoniemi K, Klein J T, Bruun H, et al. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators[J]. Research Policy, 2010, 39(1): 79-88.
42 闵超, YingDing, 李江, 等. 单篇论著的引文扩散[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(4): 341-350.
43 李凌英, 闵超, 孙建军. 引文波峰的量化与分布探究[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(7): 697-708.
44 Waltman L, Costas R. F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: a comparison with citations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(3): 433-445.
45 National Library of Medicine. Publication characteristics (publication types) with scope notes[EB/OL]. [2020-03-31]. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/pubtypes.html.
46 Wang P L, Williams J, Zhang N, et al. F1000Prime recommended articles and their citations: an exploratory study of four journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 122(2): 933-955. |
|
|
|
