Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review Citation Factors

  • From the Researcher’s Notebook
  • Published:
Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reviews are essential for the sustainable development of research, as evidenced by their higher citation rates compared to other types of publications. The literature on the typification of reviews is analyzed; the role of reviews in the general flow of scientific publications is characterized, including by scientific trends; and hypotheses about factors affecting the citation of scientific publications in general and reviews in particular are accumulated. To confirm the hypotheses and determine the degree of influence of individual factors, a correlation and regression analysis of the selected array of scientific reviews has been carried out. As a result, the influence of ten factors is shown. The most significant of them are the rating of the journal, the age of the article, the bibliography length, the language in which the review is written, and the average Hirsch index of the authors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Y. S. Ho and M. Kahn, “A bibliometric study of highly cited reviews in the Science Citation Index expanded,” J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65 (2), 372–385 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. T. Horsley, “Tips for improving the writing and reporting quality of systematic, scoping, and narrative reviews,” J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 39 (1), 54–57 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. C. M. Ketcham and J. M. Crawford, “The impact of review articles,” Laboratory Investigation 87 (12), 1174–1185 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. A. Guskov, D. Kosyakov, and I. Selivanova, “Scientometric research in Russia: Impact of science policy changes,” Scientometrics 107 (1), 287–303 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. V. Pislyakov and E. Dyachenko, “Citation expectations: Are they realized? Study of the Matthew index for Russian papers published abroad,” Scientometrics 83 (3), 739–749 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. A. E. Gus’kov, “ Russian scientometrics: Research overview,” Bibliosfera, No. 3, 75–86 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. Garfield, “Can citation indexing be automated?,” Essays Inf. Sci. 1, 84–90 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. R. Cole and S. Cole, “The Ortega hypothesis,” Science 178 (4059), 368–375 (1972).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. M. H. MacRoberts and B. R. MacRoberts, “Quantitative measures of communication in science: A study of the formal level,” Soc. Stud. Sci. 16 (1), 151–172 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. T. A. Brooks, “Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations,” J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. 36 (4), 223–229 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. J. Nicolaisen, “The social act of citing: Towards new horizons in citation theory,” J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 40 (1), 12–20 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. V. Bredikhin, A. Yu. Kuznetsov, and N. G. Shcherbakov, Citation Analysis in Bibliometrics (IVMiMG SO RAN; NEIKON, Novosibirsk, 2013) [in Russian].

  13. S. Subotic and B. Mukherjee, “Short and amusing: The relationship between title characteristics, downloads, and citations in psychology articles,” J. Inf. Sci. 40 (1), 115–124 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. A. Annalingam, H. Damayanthi, R. Jayawardena, et al., “Determinants of the citation rate of medical research publications from a developing country,” Springer Plus 3 (1), 1–6 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. O. A. Uthman, C. I. Okwundu, C. S. Wiysonge, et al., “Citation classics in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: who wrote the top 100 most cited articles?,” PloS ONE 8 (10), e78517 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. P. Wang and D. A. White, “A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages,” J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. 50 (2), 98–114 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. L. Bornmann and L. Leydesdorff, “Skewness of citation impact data and covariates of citation distributions: A large scale empirical analysis based on Web of Science data,” J. Informetrics 11 (1), 164–175 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. P. Royle, N. B. Kandala, K. Barnard, and N. Waugh, “Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: Analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors,” Syst. Rev. 2 (1), 74 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. S. E. Hug, M. Ochsner, and H. D. Daniel, “A framework to explore and develop criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities,” Int. J. Educ. Law Policy 10 (1), 55–64 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  20. E. A. Henneken, M. J. Kurtz, G. Eichhorn, et al., “Effect of E printing on citation rates in astronomy and physics,” J. Electron. Pub. 9 (2), 2853–2856 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  21. T. Rees, K. Ayling-Rouse, and S. Smith, “Accesses versus citations: Why you need to measure both to assess publication impact,” Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 28 (1), S9–S10 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. W. P. Yue and C. S. Wilson, “Measuring the citation impact of research journals in clinical neurology: A structural equation modelling analysis,” Scientometrics 60 (3), 317–332 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. M. E. Falagas, A. Zarkali, D. E. Karageorgopoulos, et al., “The impact of article length on the number of future citations: A bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals,” PLoS ONE 40 (2), e49476 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. P. Ball, “A longer paper gathers more citations,” Nature 455 (7211), 274–276 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. J. Xie, K. Gong, Y. Cheng, et al., “The correlation between paper length and citations: a meta-analysis,” Scientometrics 118 (3), 763–786 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. F. Didegah and M. Thelwall, “Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology,” J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64 (5), 1055–1064 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. A. Sutton, M. Clowes, L. Preston, and A. Booth, “Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements,” Health Inf. Lib. J. 36 (3), 202–222 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. C. Lokker, K. A. McKibbon, R. J. McKinlay, et al., “Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study,” BMJ 336 (7645), 655–657 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. K. W. Boyack, N. J. Van Eck, G. Colavizza, et al., “Characterizing in-text citations in scientific articles: A large-scale analysis,” J. Informetrics 12 (1), 59–73 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Z. Hu, C. Chen, and Z. Liu, “Where are citations located in the body of scientific articles? A study of the distributions of citation locations,” J. Informetrics 7 (4), 887–896 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. S. Peroni, P. Ciancarini, A. Gangemi, et al., “The practice of self-citations: a longitudinal study,” Scientometrics 123 (12), 253–282 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. N. J. Cooper, D. R. Jones, and A. J. Sutton, “The use of systematic reviews when designing studies,” Clinic. Trials 2 (3), 260–264 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. D. W. Aksnes, “Characteristics of highly cited papers,” Res. Eval. 12 (3), 159–170 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. W. Glänzel and H.J. Czerwon, “What are highly cited publications? A method applied to German scientific papers, 1980–1989,” Res. Eval. 2 (3), 135–141 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Information Worker Handbook, Ed. by R. S. Gilyarevskii and V. A. Minkin (Professiya, St. Petersburg, 2005) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. N. Kurzanov, Scientific review: The role and place in the system of information and analytical texts, preparation in a journal article format. http://sciencereview.Ru/Articles1.html. Cited July 10, 2020.

  37. I. S. Zakharova, Basics of Information and Analytical Activities: A Tutorial (Tsentr Ucheb. Lit., Kiev, 2013) [in Russian]. http://uchebnikirus.com/informatika/osnovi_informatsiyno-analitichnoyi_diyalnosti_-_zaharova_iv/osnovi_informatsiyno-analitichnoyi_diyalnosti_-_zaharova_iv.htm. Cited July 27, 2020.

  38. V. M. Pastukhov, “General concepts of the review literature,” Nauch.-Tekh. Inf., Ser. 1: Org. Metod. Inf. Rab., No. 4, 19–24 (1983).

  39. A. A. Koryukova and V. G. Dera, Fundamentals of Scientific and Technical Information: A Textbook for Universities in the Specialty “Automation and Mechanization of Information Processing and Issuance Processes” (Vysshaya Shkola, Moscow, 1985) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  40. E. Sh. Zhuravel’ and G. V. Korsunskaya, “Classification of reviews,” Nauch.-Tekh. Inf., Ser. 1: Org. Metod. Inf. Rab., No. 7, 14–17 (1974).

  41. V. V. Vlasov, “How to write a literature review,” Flebologiya 7 (3), 47–56 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  42. B. Chaudhry and J. Wang, “Systematic review: Impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care,” Ann. Intern. Med. 144 (10), 742–752 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. J. A. Collins and B. C. J. M. Fauser, “Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews,” Hum. Reprod. Update 11 (2), 103–104 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. V. Smith, D. Devane, C. M. Begley, and M. Clarke, “Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 11 (1), 1–6 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. O. L. Lavrik, T. A. Kalyuzhnaya, and M. A. Pleshakova, “Systematic review as a type of review-and-analytical products,” Bibliosfera, No. 2, 33–51 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. G. L. Levin and N. S. Maslovskaya, “Standardization of bibliographic terminology: Development and modernity,” Bibliosfera, No. 4, 23–32 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  47. C. Bradbury-Jones, J. P. Breckenridge, M. T. Clark, et al., “Advancing the science of literature reviewing in social research: The focused mapping review and synthesis,” Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 22 (5), 451–462 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. M. J. Grant and A. Booth, “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies,” Health Inf. Lib. J. 26 (2), 91–108 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. H. Snyder, “Literature review as a research methodology an overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res. 104 (4), 333–339 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. G. Paré, M.-C. Trudel, M. Jaana, and S. Kitsiou, “Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews,” Inf. Manag. 52 (2), 183–199 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. J. P. Tennant, H. Crane, T. Crick, et al., “Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing,” Bibliosfera, No. 3, 3–25 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 19-111-50432.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Public Scientific Technological Library, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia

    A. E. Guskov, D. V. Kosyakov, A. V. Bagirova & P. Yu. Blinov

Authors
  1. A. E. Guskov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. V. Kosyakov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. V. Bagirova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Yu. Blinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to A. E. Guskov, D. V. Kosyakov, A. V. Bagirova or P. Yu. Blinov.

Additional information

Translated by B. Alekseev

Andrey Evgenievich Guskov, Cand. Sci. (Eng.), is Director of the State Public Scientific Technological Library of the RAS Siberian Branch (SPSTL SB RAS). Denis Viktorovich Kosyakov is Deputy Director for Development of the same library. Aleksandra Valer’evna Bagirova is a Junior Researcher of the SPSTL SB RAS Laboratory of Scientometrics. Pavel Yur’evich Blinov, Cand. Sci. (Eng.), is a Researcher at the same laboratory.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guskov, A.E., Kosyakov, D.V., Bagirova, A.V. et al. Review Citation Factors. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 90, 738–750 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331620060283

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331620060283

Keywords:

Search

Navigation