Gender variations in citation distributions in medicine are very small and due to self-citation and journal prestige.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Andersen JP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6677534 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Gender variations in citation distributions in medicine are very small and due to self-citation and journal prestige.
Andersen Jens Peter JP Schneider Jesper Wiborg JW Jagsi Reshma R Nielsen Mathias Wullum MW
eLife 20190715
A number of studies suggest that scientific papers with women in leading-author positions attract fewer citations than those with men in leading-author positions. We report the results of a matched case-control study of 1,269,542 papers in selected areas of medicine published between 2008 and 2014. We find that papers with female authors are, on average, cited between 6.5 and 12.6% less than papers with male authors. However, the standardized mean differences are very small, and the percentage o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Bibliometric indicators increasingly affect careers, funding, and reputation of individuals, their institutions and journals themselves. In contrast to author self-citations, little is known about kinetics of journal self-citations. Here we hypothesized that they may show a generalizable pattern within particular research fields or across multiple fields. We thus analyzed self-cites to 60 journals from three research fields (multidisciplinary sciences, parasitology, and information science). We also hypothesized that the kinetics of journal self-citations and citations received from other journals of the same publisher may differ from foreign citations. We analyzed the journals published the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature Publishing Group, and Editura Academiei Române. We found that although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics. Particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journal self-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent. Self-promoting journal self-citations of top-tier journals have rather indirect but negligible direct effects on bibliometric indicators, affecting just the immediacy index and marginally increasing the impact factor itself as long as the affected journals are well established in their fields. In contrast, other forms of journal self-citations and citation stacking may severely affect the impact factor, or other citation-based indices. We identified here a network consisting of three Romanian physics journals Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, Romanian Journal of Physics, and Romanian Reports in Physics, which displayed low to moderate ratio of journal self-citations, but which multiplied recently their impact factors, and were mutually responsible for 55.9%, 64.7% and 63.3% of citations within the impact factor calculation window to the three journals, respectively. They did not receive nearly any network self-cites prior impact factor calculation window, and their network self-cites decreased sharply after the impact factor calculation window. Journal self-citations and citation stacking requires increased attention and elimination from citation indices.
| S-EPMC4835057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPeer review is a volunteer process for improving the quality of publications by providing objective feedback to authors, but also presents an opportunity for reviewers to seek personal reward by requesting self-citations. Open peer review may reduce the prevalence of self-citation requests and encourage author rebuttal over accession. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-citation requests and their inclusion in manuscripts in a journal with open peer review.MethodsRequests for additional references to be included during peer review for articles published between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 in BMC Medicine were evaluated. Data extracted included total number of self-citations requested, self-citations that were included in the final published manuscript and manuscripts that included at least one self-citation, and compared with corresponding data on independent citations.ResultsIn total, 932 peer review reports from 373 manuscripts were analysed. At least one additional citation was requested in 25.9% (n = 241) of reports. Self-citation requests were included in 44.4% of reports requesting additional citations (11.5% of all reports). Requests for self-citation were significantly more likely than independent citations to be incorporated in the published manuscript (65.1% vs 52.1%; chi-square p = 0.003). At the manuscript level, when requested, self-citations were incorporated in 76.6% of manuscripts (n = 72; 19.3% of all manuscripts) compared with 68.5% of manuscripts with independent citation requests (n = 102; 27.3% of manuscripts). A significant interaction was observed between the presence of self-citation requests and the likelihood of any citation request being incorporated (100% incorporation in manuscripts with self-citation requests alone versus 62.7-72.2% with any independent citation request; Fisher's exact test p<0.0005).ConclusionsRequests for self-citations during the peer review process are common. The transparency of open peer review may have the unexpected effect of encouraging authors to incorporate self-citation requests by disclosing peer reviewer identity.
| S-EPMC7444519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It was recently reported that men self-cite >50% more often than women across a wide variety of disciplines in the bibliographic database JSTOR. Here, we replicate this finding in a sample of 1.6 million papers from Author-ity, a version of PubMed with computationally disambiguated author names. More importantly, we show that the gender effect largely disappears when accounting for prior publication count in a multidimensional statistical model. Gender has the weakest effect on the probability of self-citation among an extensive set of features tested, including byline position, affiliation, ethnicity, collaboration size, time lag, subject-matter novelty, reference/citation counts, publication type, language, and venue. We find that self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender, who cite their novel journal publications early and in similar venues, and more often cross citation-barriers such as language and indexing. As a result, papers by authors with short, disrupted, or diverse careers miss out on the initial boost in visibility gained from self-citations. Our data further suggest that this disproportionately affects women because of attrition and not because of disciplinary under-specialization.
| S-EPMC6157831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aims of this bibliometric study were to determine author self-citation trends in high-impact orthodontic literature and to investigate possible association between self-citation and publication characteristics.MethodsSix orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor as ranked by 2017 Journal Citation Reports were screened for a full publication year (2018) for original research articles, reviews, and case reports. Eligible articles were scrutinized for article and author characteristics and citation metrics. Univariable and multivariable negative binomial regression was used to examine associations between self-citation incidence and publication characteristics.ResultsMedians for author self-citation rate of the most self-citing authors and self-citations were 3.03% (range 0-50) and 1 (range 0-19), respectively. In the univariable analysis, there was no association between self-citation counts and study type (P = 0.41), article topic (P = 0.61), number of authors (P = 0.62), and rank of authors (P = 0.56). Author origin (P = 0.001), gender (P = 0.001) and journal (P = 0.05) were associated with self-citation counts and in the multivariable analysis only origin and gender remained strong self-citation predictors. Asian authors and females self-cited significantly less often than all other regions and male authors.ConclusionsAuthors in orthodontics do not self-cite at a frequency that suggests potential citation manipulation. Author origin and gender were the only variables associated with citations counts. More bibliometric research is necessary to draw solid conclusions about author self-citation trends in orthodontic literature.
| S-EPMC7788150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:International collaboration is becoming increasingly important for the advancement of science. To gain a more precise understanding of how factors such as international collaboration influence publication success, we divide publication success into two categories: journal placement and citation performance. Analyzing all papers published between 1996 and 2012 in eight disciplines, we find that those with more countries in their affiliations performed better in both categories. Furthermore, specific countries vary in their effects both individually and in combination. Finally, we look at the relationship between national output (in papers published) and input (in citations received) over the 17 years, expanding upon prior depictions by also plotting an expected proportion of citations based on Journal Placement. Discrepancies between this expectation and the realized proportion of citations illuminate trends in performance, such as the decline of the Global North in response to rapidly developing countries, especially China. Yet, most countries' show little to no discrepancy, meaning that, in most cases, citation proportion can be predicted by Journal Placement alone. This reveals an extreme asymmetry between the opinions of a few reviewers and the degree to which paper acceptance and citation rates influence career advancement.
| S-EPMC4189927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Modeling distributions of citations to scientific papers is crucial for understanding how science develops. However, there is a considerable empirical controversy on which statistical model fits the citation distributions best. This paper is concerned with rigorous empirical detection of power-law behaviour in the distribution of citations received by the most highly cited scientific papers. We have used a large, novel data set on citations to scientific papers published between 1998 and 2002 drawn from Scopus. The power-law model is compared with a number of alternative models using a likelihood ratio test. We have found that the power-law hypothesis is rejected for around half of the Scopus fields of science. For these fields of science, the Yule, power-law with exponential cut-off and log-normal distributions seem to fit the data better than the pure power-law model. On the other hand, when the power-law hypothesis is not rejected, it is usually empirically indistinguishable from most of the alternative models. The pure power-law model seems to be the best model only for the most highly cited papers in "Physics and Astronomy". Overall, our results seem to support theories implying that the most highly cited scientific papers follow the Yule, power-law with exponential cut-off or log-normal distribution. Our findings suggest also that power laws in citation distributions, when present, account only for a very small fraction of the published papers (less than 1 % for most of science fields) and that the power-law scaling parameter (exponent) is substantially higher (from around 3.2 to around 4.7) than found in the older literature.
| S-EPMC4365275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSexual and gender minorities (SGMs) in medicine experience unique stressors in training. However, little is known about SGM specialty choice. This study examined predictors of SGM specialty choice, associations between specialty prestige and perceived SGM inclusion, and self-reported influences on specialty choice.MethodsMedical trainees and practitioners (358 SGM, 1528 non-SGM) were surveyed online. We operationalized specialty choice at the individual level as respondents' specialty of practice; at the specialty level, as a percentage of SGM respondents in each specialty. We examined specialty prestige, perceived SGM inclusivity, and medical school climate as predictors of SGM specialty choice, and we compared additional influences on specialty choice between SGM and non-SGM.ResultsThe percentage of SGM in each specialty was inversely related to specialty prestige (P = 0.001) and positively related to perceived SGM inclusivity (P = 0.01). Prestigious specialties were perceived as less SGM inclusive (P < 0.001). Medical school climate did not predict specialty prestige (P = 0.82). SGM were more likely than non-SGM to indicate that sexual and gender identity strongly influenced specialty choice (P < 0.01). SGM most frequently rated personality fit, specialty content, role models, and work-life balance as strong influences on specialty choice. Exposure as a medical student to SGM faculty did not predict specialty prestige among SGM.ConclusionSpecialty prestige and perceived inclusivity predict SGM specialty choice. SGM diversity initiatives in prestigious specialties may be particularly effective by addressing SGM inclusion directly. Further research is needed to inform effective mentorship for SGM medical students. Exposure to SGM in medical training reduces anti-SGM bias among medical professionals, and SGM in medicine often assume leadership roles in clinical care, education, and research regarding SGM health. Supporting and promoting SGM diversity across the spectrum of medical specialties, therefore, represents a critical avenue to improve the care delivered to SGM populations and addresses the role of providers in the health disparities experienced by SGM.
| S-EPMC5165663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Citations measure the importance of a publication, and may serve as a proxy for its popularity and quality of its contents. Here we study the distributions of citations to publications from individual academic institutions for a single year. The average number of citations have large variations between different institutions across the world, but the probability distributions of citations for individual institutions can be rescaled to a common form by scaling the citations by the average number of citations for that institution. We find this feature seems to be universal for a broad selection of institutions irrespective of the average number of citations per article. A similar analysis for citations to publications in a particular journal in a single year reveals similar results. We find high absolute inequality for both these sets, Gini coefficients being around 0.66 and 0.58 for institutions and journals respectively. We also find that the top 25% of the articles hold about 75% of the total citations for institutions and the top 29% of the articles hold about 71% of the total citations for journals.
| S-EPMC4709109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis.ResultsThe mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD ± 29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD ± 4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P < 0.001). Higher numbers of citations were associated with the following characteristics: first author from the United States (36.5 citations), an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms (31.8 citations), type of intervention classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening (34.7 citations) and having an international collaboration (32.1 citations). The JIF alone explained more than half of the variation in citations (R(2) = 0.59) in univariate analysis. Adjusting for both JIF and type of intervention increased the R2 value to 0.81. Fourteen percent of reviews published in the top quartile of JIFs (? 5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (? 2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations.ConclusionsThe JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC3847500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we conducted a citation network analysis of the Journal of Counseling Psychology (JCP) to elucidate the scope, evolution, and interconnections of JCP publications as reflected in how authors use (i.e., cite) these publications. We used CitNetExplorer to analyze a network of 4,718 JCP publications and 16,959 citation links. The analysis yielded 19 clusters in JCP's citation network. The most dominant facet of the citation network focused on counseling, counseling process, and counseling outcome. The clusters in this facet shifted from an early focus on perceptions of counselors to continuing examinations of what happens in counseling. Another dominant facet comprised clusters on vocational psychology, shifting from an earlier focus on vocational choice and interest, to career counseling and decision making, to vocational and academic development processes and predictors. These major facets converged toward a continuing cluster focused on methodology and analysis along with race, gender, sexuality, and other diversity scholarship. This suggests that diversity-focused publications in JCP often employ and cite methodological and analytic advances. The results also reveal discontinued areas of scholarship in JCP that are ripe for revisiting and rebuilding in new directions (e.g., anger and social justice activism; clinical judgment and artificial intelligence). The results suggest that a promising next step in the evolution of JCP would be for authors to engage with and cite diversity scholarship as central to "general" domains of JCP scholarship. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC10898226 | biostudies-literature