The citation advantage of linking publications to research data

Abstract:  Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging or mandating authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong uptake of data availability statements in recent literature. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, for example via a URL or permanent identifier, and if there is an added value in providing such links. We consider 531, 889 journal articles published by PLOS and BMC, develop an automatic system for labelling their data availability statements according to four categories based on their content and the type of data availability they display, and finally analyze the citation advantage of different statement categories via regression. We find that, following mandated publisher policies, data availability statements become very common. In 2018 93.7% of 21,793 PLOS articles and 88.2% of 31,956 BMC articles had data availability statements. Data availability statements containing a link to data in a repository—rather than being available on request or included as supporting information files—are a fraction of the total. In 2017 and 2018, 20.8% of PLOS publications and 12.2% of BMC publications provided DAS containing a link to data in a repository. We also find an association between articles that include statements that link to data in a repository and up to 25.36% (± 1.07%) higher citation impact on average, using a citation prediction model. We discuss the potential implications of these results for authors (researchers) and journal publishers who make the effort of sharing their data in repositories. All our data and code are made available in order to reproduce and extend our results.

 

Social Media Coverage of Scientific Articles Immediately After Publication Predicts Subsequent Citations – #SoME_Impact Score: Observational Analysis | Sathianathen | Journal of Medical Internet Research

“Social media attention predicts citations and could be used as an early surrogate measure of scientific impact. Owing to the cross-sectional study design, we cannot determine whether correlation relates to causation.”

The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review | Demetres | Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract:  Objective: Institutional repositories are platforms for presenting and publicizing scholarly output that might not be suitable to publish in a peer-reviewed journal or that must meet open access requirements. However, there are many challenges associated with their launch and up-keep. The objective of this systematic review was to define the impacts of institutional repositories (IRs) on an academic institution, thus justifying their implementation and/or maintenance.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (Wiley), ERIC (ProQuest), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus (Elsevier), and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (EBSCO). A total of 6,593 citations were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results: Thirteen included studies were divided into 3 areas of impact: citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative impact. Those focusing on citation count (n=5) and exposure or presence (n=7) demonstrated positive impacts of IRs on institutions and researchers. One study focusing on administrative benefit demonstrated the utility of IRs in automated population of ORCID profiles.

Conclusion: Based on the available literature, IRs appear to have a positive impact on citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative burden. To draw stronger conclusions, more and higher-quality studies are needed.

 

Using social media to promote academic research: Identifying the benefits of twitter for sharing academic work

Abstract:  To disseminate research, scholars once relied on university media services or journal press releases, but today any academic can turn to Twitter to share their published work with a broader audience. The possibility that scholars can push their research out, rather than hope that it is pulled in, holds the potential for scholars to draw wide attention to their research. In this manuscript, we examine whether there are systematic differences in the types of scholars who most benefit from this push model. Specifically, we investigate the extent to which there are gender differences in the dissemination of research via Twitter. We carry out our analyses by tracking tweet patterns for articles published in six journals across two fields (political science and communication), and we pair this Twitter data with demographic and educational data about the authors of the published articles, as well as article citation rates. We find considerable evidence that, overall, article citations are positively correlated with tweets about the article, and we find little evidence to suggest that author gender affects the transmission of research in this new media.

 

Open access publishing in gastroenterology: good for the researcher and good for the public! | Frontline Gastroenterology

“Citation metrics can be important aspect of academic impact, with data on citation metrics of open access vs non-open access publications being variable. We reviewed the effect of open access publishing on citation metrics in the field of gastroenterology. We reviewed original research articles in Gut, Gastroenterology and the American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG). Publications were cross referenced with the Web of Science database to determine overall citation rates.

Between January 2009 and December 2013, 3057 original research articles were published (Gastroenterology (n=1431), Gut (n=732), AJG (n=894)). Of these, 154 (5.0%) were open access publications (Gastroenterology (n=13), Gut (n=70), AJG (n=71)). The proportion of open access publications was different between journals (p<0.001). The variation may have been due to different article processing charges requested by publishers, with open access publication rates known to be variable, dependent on publisher.5 Overall, open access publications in the three journals had significantly higher citation rates than non-open access publications (median citation rate: 38.5 vs 33, p=0.044), highlighting the benefits of open access publishing in the field of gastroenterology (table 1)….”

Open Access Availability Of Anatomy Papers Presented At Meetings Of The American And British Associations Of Clinical Anatomists – Miller – – Clinical Anatomy – Wiley Online Library

“When work does not reach OA publication, readership from the wider medical community may be restricted, limiting the scope for critical appraisal to either conference attendees (von Elm et al., 2003) or those able to mitigate the financial cost of paper access (Velterop, 2003). The gold standard for anatomical research accessibility maytherefore be OA peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a national meeting….

The primary objective of this study was to quantify the proportion of anatomy research papers that are available as gold and bronze OA. The secondary objective comprised quantitative analysis of citation rates between gold and bronze OA and non-OA papers….

The combined proportion of open access publications was 20.0% (125 of 625). The open access publication rate from research presented was 18.75% (69 of 368) at BACA and 21.79% (56 of 257) at AACA [American Association of Clinical Anatomists]. The total number of publications published by year and the average OA publication rate per year can be seen in Figure 2 for AACA and Figure 3 for BACA [British Association of Clinical Anatomists]….

This study is the first to assess the longitudinal citation rates of OA and non-OA Anatomy publications and one of the largest individual studies comparing OA and non-OA citation rates in medical research. These data have shown that citation rates are significantly higher (n on-OA 15.14 vs OA 18.95 p=0.047) amongst OA anatomy papers presented at these two conferences. On average, conference papers were cited 16.4 times (BACA 16.56, AACA 16.19) ranging from 0-236. In view of this, it is encouraging that BACA OA publication rates have improved in recent years….”

The Citation Advantage of Promoted Articles in a Cross?Publisher Distribution Platform: A 12?Month Randomized Controlled Trial – Kudlow – – Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  There is currently a paucity of evidence?based strategies that have been shown to increase citations of peer?reviewed articles following their publication. We conducted a 12?month randomized controlled trial to examine whether the promotion of article links in an online cross?publisher distribution platform (TrendMD) affects citations. In all, 3,200 articles published in 64 peer?reviewed journals across eight subject areas were block randomized at the subject level to either the TrendMD group (n = 1,600) or the control group (n = 1,600) of the study. Our primary outcome compares the mean citations of articles randomized to TrendMD versus control after 12 months. Articles randomized to TrendMD showed a 50% increase in mean citations relative to control at 12 months. The difference in mean citations at 12 months for articles randomized to TrendMD versus control was 5.06, 95% confidence interval [2.87, 7.25], was statistically significant (p?<?.001) and found in three of eight subject areas. At 6 months following publication, articles randomized to TrendMD showed a smaller, yet statistically significant (p = .005), 21% increase in mean citations, relative to control. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate how an intervention can be used to increase citations of peer?reviewed articles after they have been published.

 

Articles in ‘predatory’ journals receive few or no citations | Science | AAAS

“Six of every 10 articles published in a sample of “predatory” journals attracted not one single citation over a 5-year period, according to a new study. Like many open-access journals, predatory journals charge authors to publish, but they offer little or no peer review or other quality controls and often use aggressive marketing tactics. The new study found that the few articles in predatory journals that received citations did so at a rate much lower than papers in conventional, peer-reviewed journals.

The authors say the finding allays concerns that low-quality or misleading studies published in these journals are getting undue attention. “There is little harm done if nobody reads and, in particular, makes use of such results,” write Bo-Christer Björk of the Hanken School of Economics in Finland and colleagues in a preprint posted 21 December 2019 on arXiv.

But Rick Anderson, an associate dean at the University of Utah who oversees collections in the university’s main library, says the finding that 40% of the predatory journal articles drew at least one citation “strikes me as pretty alarming.” …”

Revisiting the Open Access Citation Advantage for Legal Scholarship

“Citation studies in law have shown a significant citation advantage for open access legal scholarship. A recent cross-disciplinary study, however, gave opposite results. This article shows how methodology, including the definition of open access and the source of the citation data, can affect the results of open access citation studies.”

Revisiting the Open Access Citation Advantage for Legal Scholarship

“Citation studies in law have shown a significant citation advantage for open access legal scholarship. A recent cross-disciplinary study, however, gave opposite results. This article shows how methodology, including the definition of open access and the source of the citation data, can affect the results of open access citation studies.”