Dataset Information

A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature.

ABSTRACT: Current science evaluation still relies on citation performance, despite criticisms of purely bibliometric research assessments. Biological taxonomy suffers from a drain of knowledge and manpower, with poor citation performance commonly held as one reason for this impediment. But is there really such a citation impediment in taxonomy? We compared the citation numbers of 306 taxonomic and 2291 non-taxonomic research articles (2009-2012) on mosses, orchids, ciliates, ants, and snakes, using Web of Science (WoS) and correcting for journal visibility. For three of the five taxa, significant differences were absent in citation numbers between taxonomic and non-taxonomic papers. This was also true for all taxa combined, although taxonomic papers received more citations than non-taxonomic ones. Our results show that, contrary to common belief, taxonomic contributions do not generally reduce a journal's citation performance and might even increase it. The scope of many journals rarely featuring taxonomy would allow editors to encourage a larger number of taxonomic submissions. Moreover, between 1993 and 2012, taxonomic publications accumulated faster than those from all biological fields. However, less than half of the taxonomic studies were published in journals in WoS. Thus, editors of highly visible journals inviting taxonomic contributions could benefit from taxonomy's strong momentum. The taxonomic output could increase even more than at its current growth rate if: (i) taxonomists currently publishing on other topics returned to taxonomy and (ii) non-taxonomists identifying the need for taxonomic acts started publishing these, possibly in collaboration with taxonomists. Finally, considering the high number of taxonomic papers attracted by the journal Zootaxa, we expect that the taxonomic community would indeed use increased chances of publishing in WoS indexed journals. We conclude that taxonomy's standing in the present citation-focused scientific landscape could easily improve-if the community becomes aware that there is no citation impediment in taxonomy.

SUBMITTER: Steiner FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4538880 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature.

Steiner Florian M FM Pautasso Marco M Zettel Herbert H Moder Karl K Arthofer Wolfgang W Schlick-Steiner Birgit C BC

Systematic biology 20150504 5

Current science evaluation still relies on citation performance, despite criticisms of purely bibliometric research assessments. Biological taxonomy suffers from a drain of knowledge and manpower, with poor citation performance commonly held as one reason for this impediment. But is there really such a citation impediment in taxonomy? We compared the citation numbers of 306 taxonomic and 2291 non-taxonomic research articles (2009-2012) on mosses, orchids, ciliates, ants, and snakes, using Web of ...[more]

PMID: 25944475

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEpidemiological research on the association between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer risk has some methodological challenges that give rise to different conclusions and intense debates. This raises the question about the role of selective citation and of citation bias in particular. Our aim was to investigate the occurrence and prevalence of selective citation in this field.DesignCitation analysis.SettingWeb of Science Core Collection.ParticipantsWe identified 96 publications in this network, with 4317 potential citations. For each publication, we extracted characteristics such as study conclusion and funding source. Some of these characteristics are related to the study content: study design, sample size, method of diesel exposure assessment, type of diesel technology under investigation, and whether smoking had been adjusted for.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhether a citation occurs or not, measured and analysed according to the preregistered protocol. Exploratively we analysed the association between funding source and study conclusion.ResultsMethodological content of a study was clearly related to citation, studies using more sophisticated methods were more likely to be cited. There was some evidence for citation bias: supportive publications had a higher chance of being cited than non-supportive ones, but after adjustment for study quality, this effect decreased substantially (adjusted OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.7). Explorative analyses indicated that three quarters of non-profit funded publications had a supportive study conclusion against only one quarter of the industry-funded publications.ConclusionsThere is evidence for selective citation within this field, but the evidence for citation bias was weak. It seems that factors related to the methodology had more impact on citation than the conclusion of a study. Interestingly, publications that were funded by industry were more skeptical about a causal relationship between diesel exhaust and lung cancer compared to non-profit-funded publications.

Project description:IntroductionBisphenol A is highly debated and studied in relation to a variety of health outcomes. This large variation in the literature makes BPA a topic that is prone to selective use of literature, in order to underpin one's own findings and opinion. Over time, selective use of literature, by means of citations, can lead to a skewed knowledge development and a biased scientific consensus. In this study, we assess which factors drive citation and whether this results in the overrepresentation of harmful health effects of BPA.MethodsA citation network analysis was performed to test various determinants of citation. A systematic search identified all relevant publications on the human health effect of BPA. Data were extracted on potential determinants of selective citation, such as study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, authority of the author, self-citation, and funding source. We applied random effect logistic regression to assess whether these determinants influence the likelihood of citation.ResultsOne hundred sixty-nine publications on BPA were identified, with 12,432 potential citation pathways of which 808 citations occurred. The network consisted of 63 cross-sectional studies, 34 cohort studies, 29 case-control studies, 35 narrative reviews, and 8 systematic reviews. Positive studies have a 1.5 times greater chance of being cited compared to negative studies. Additionally, the authority of the author and self-citation are consistently found to be positively associated with the likelihood of being cited. Overall, the network seems to be highly influenced by two highly cited publications, whereas 60 out of 169 publications received no citations.ConclusionIn the literature on BPA, citation is mostly driven by positive study outcome and author-related factors, such as high authority within the network. Interpreting the impact of these factors and the big influence of a few highly cited publications, it can be questioned to which extent the knowledge development in human literature on BPA is actually evidence-based.

Project description:The scientific study of consciousness is currently undergoing a critical transition in the form of a rapidly evolving scientific debate regarding whether or not currently proposed theories can be assessed for their scientific validity. At the forefront of this debate is Integrated Information Theory (IIT), widely regarded as the preeminent theory of consciousness because it quantified subjective experience in a scalar mathematical measure called Φ that is in principle measurable. Epistemological issues in the form of the "unfolding argument" have provided a concrete refutation of IIT by demonstrating how it permits functionally identical systems to have differences in their predicted consciousness. The implication is that IIT and any other proposed theory based on a physical system's causal structure may already be falsified even in the absence of experimental refutation. However, so far many of these arguments surrounding the epistemological foundations of falsification arguments, such as the unfolding argument, are too abstract to determine the full scope of their implications. Here, we make these abstract arguments concrete, by providing a simple example of functionally equivalent machines realizable with table-top electronics that take the form of isomorphic digital circuits with and without feedback. This allows us to explicitly demonstrate the different levels of abstraction at which a theory of consciousness can be assessed. Within this computational hierarchy, we show how IIT is simultaneously falsified at the finite-state automaton level and unfalsifiable at the combinatorial-state automaton level. We use this example to illustrate a more general set of falsification criteria for theories of consciousness: to avoid being already falsified, or conversely unfalsifiable, scientific theories of consciousness must be invariant with respect to changes that leave the inference procedure fixed at a particular level in a computational hierarchy.

Dataset Information

A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature.

Publications

A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets