Measuring the influence of non-scientific features on citations

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Citations remain a prime, yet controversial, measure of academic performance. Ideally, how often a paper is cited should solely depend on the quality of the science reported therein. However, non-scientific factors, including structural elements (e.g., length of abstract, number of references) or attributes of authors (e.g., prestige and gender), may all influence citation outcomes. Knowing the predicted effect of these features on citations might make it possible to ‘game the system’ of citation counts when writing a paper. We conducted a meta-analysis to build a quantitative understanding of the effect of similar non-scientific features on the impact of scientific articles in terms of citations. We showed that article length, number of authors, author experience and their collaboration network, Impact Factors, availability as open access, online sharing, different referencing practice, and number of figures all exerted a positive influence on citations. These patterns were consistent across most disciplines. We also documented temporal trends towards a recent increase in the effect of journal Impact Factor and number of authors on citations. We suggest that our approach can be used as a benchmark to monitor the influence of these effects over time, minimising the influence of non-scientific features as a means to game the system of citation counts, and thus enhancing their usefulness as a measure of scientific quality.

Related collections

Most cited references 56

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2025)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.