This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abramo, G. (2018). Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 590-597.AbramoG. (2018). Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 590–597.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G. (2024). The forced battle between peer-review and scientometric research assessment: Why the CoARA initiative is unsound. Research Evaluation, rvae021, DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvae021.AbramoG. (2024). The forced battle between peer-review and scientometric research assessment: Why the CoARA initiative is unsound. Research Evaluation, rvae021, DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvae021.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C.A. (2011). Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 659-667.AbramoG.CiceroT.D’AngeloC.A. (2011). Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 659–667.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C.A. (2015). The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 746-761.AbramoG.D’AngeloC.A. (2015). The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 746–761.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., & Di Costa, F. (2016). The effect of a country’s name in the title of a publication on its visibility and citability. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1895-1909.AbramoG.D’AngeloC.A.Di CostaF. (2016). The effect of a country’s name in the title of a publication on its visibility and citability. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1895–1909.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., & Di Costa, F. (2017a). Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science? Scientometrics, 111(1), 317-336.AbramoG.D’AngeloC.A.Di CostaF. (2017a). Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science?Scientometrics, 111(1), 317–336.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., & Di Costa, F. (2017b). Specialization versus diversification in research activities: the extent, intensity and relatedness of field diversification by individual scientists. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1403-1418.AbramoG.D’AngeloC.A.Di CostaF. (2017b). Specialization versus diversification in research activities: the extent, intensity and relatedness of field diversification by individual scientists. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1403–1418.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., & Felici, G. (2019). Predicting long-term publication impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 32-49.AbramoG.D’AngeloC.A.FeliciG. (2019). Predicting long-term publication impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 32–49.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811-822. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002AbramoG.D’AngeloC.A.MurgiaG. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811–822. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., & Reale, E. (2019). Peer review vs bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications? Scientometrics, 121(1), 537-554.AbramoG.D’AngeloC.A.RealeE. (2019). Peer review vs bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?Scientometrics, 121(1), 537–554.Search in Google Scholar
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A.O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review’. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6, 1-8.AczelB.SzasziB.HolcombeA.O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review’. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6, 1–8.Search in Google Scholar
Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2008). Citation statistics. International Mathematical Union, in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdfAdlerR.EwingJ.TaylorP. (2008). Citation statistics. International Mathematical Union, in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Aksnes, D.W., & Taxt, R.E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at Norwegian University. Research Evaluation, 13 (1), 33-41.AksnesD.W.TaxtR.E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at Norwegian University. Research Evaluation, 13 (1), 33–41.Search in Google Scholar
Alimohammadi, D., & Sajjadi, M. (2009). Correlation between references and citations. Webology, 6(2), a71.AlimohammadiD.SajjadiM. (2009). Correlation between references and citations. Webology, 6(2), a71.Search in Google Scholar
Allen, L., Jones, C., Dolby, K., Lynn, D., & Walport, M. (2009). Looking for landmarks: The role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS ONE, 4(6).AllenL.JonesC.DolbyK.LynnD.WalportM. (2009). Looking for landmarks: The role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS ONE, 4(6).Search in Google Scholar
Alohali, Y.A., Fayed, M.S, Mesallam, T., Abdelsamad, Y., Almuhawas, F., & Hagr, A. (2022). A machine learning model to predict citation counts of scientific papers in otology field. BioMed Research International. DOI: 10.1155/2022/2239152AlohaliY.A.FayedM.S.MesallamT.AbdelsamadY.AlmuhawasF.HagrA. (2022). A machine learning model to predict citation counts of scientific papers in otology field. BioMed Research International. DOI: 10.1155/2022/2239152Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Ante, L. (2022). The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses. Journal of Informetrics, 16(1), 101252. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101252AnteL. (2022). The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses. Journal of Informetrics, 16(1), 101252. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101252Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?. College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372-382.AntelmanK. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?. College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.Search in Google Scholar
Antoniou, G.A., Antoniou, S.A., Georgakarakos, E.I., Sfyroeras, G.S., & Georgiadis, G.S. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of factors predicting increased citations in the vascular and endovascular literature. Annals of Vascular Surgery, 29(2), 286-92.AntoniouG.A.AntoniouS.A.GeorgakarakosE.I.SfyroerasG.S.GeorgiadisG.S. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of factors predicting increased citations in the vascular and endovascular literature. Annals of Vascular Surgery, 29(2), 286–92.Search in Google Scholar
Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342.ArchambaultÉ.Vignola-GagnéÉ.CôtéG.LarivièreV.GingrasY. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2016). Stat-checking software stirs up psychology. Nature, 540(7631), 151-152.BakerM. (2016). Stat-checking software stirs up psychology. Nature, 540(7631), 151–152.Search in Google Scholar
Ball, P. (2008). A longer paper gathers more citations. Nature, 455(7211), 274.BallP. (2008). A longer paper gathers more citations. Nature, 455(7211), 274.Search in Google Scholar
Beranová, L., Joachimiak, M. P., Kliegr, T., Rabby, G., & Sklenák, V. (2022). Why was this cited? Explainable machine learning applied to COVID-19 research literature. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2313-2349.BeranováL.JoachimiakM. P.KliegrT.RabbyG.SklenákV. (2022). Why was this cited? Explainable machine learning applied to COVID-19 research literature. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2313–2349.Search in Google Scholar
Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A., & Peracchi, F. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44(2), 451-466.BertocchiG.GambardellaA.JappelliT.NappiC. A.PeracchiF. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44(2), 451–466.Search in Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul.BloorD. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul.Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.BornmannL. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233.Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L. (2017). Measuring impact in research evaluations: A thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. Higher Education, 73(5), 775-787.BornmannL. (2017). Measuring impact in research evaluations: A thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. Higher Education, 73(5), 775–787.Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286-291.BornmannL.LeydesdorffL. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286–291.Search in Google Scholar
Budtz Pedersen, D., Grønvad, J. F., & Hvidtfeldt, R. (2020). Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities - A literature review. Research Evaluation, 29, 4-21.Budtz PedersenD.GrønvadJ. F.HvidtfeldtR. (2020). Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities - A literature review. Research Evaluation, 29, 4–21.Search in Google Scholar
Calver, M.C., & Bradley, J.S. (2010). Patterns of citations of open access and non-open access conservation biology journal papers and book chapters. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 872-80.CalverM.C.BradleyJ.S. (2010). Patterns of citations of open access and non-open access conservation biology journal papers and book chapters. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 872–80.Search in Google Scholar
Caputo, A., Manesh, M.F., Farrukh, M., Farzipoor Saen, R., & Randolph-Seng, B. (2022). Editorial: Over a halfcentury of management decision: a bibliometric overview. Management Decision, 60(8), 2129-2147.CaputoA.ManeshM.F.FarrukhM.Farzipoor SaenR.Randolph-SengB. (2022). Editorial: Over a halfcentury of management decision: a bibliometric overview. Management Decision, 60(8), 2129–2147.Search in Google Scholar
Cárdenas, J. (2023). Inteligencia artificial, investigación y revisión por pares: escenarios futuros y estrategias de acción [Artificial intelligence, research, and peer review: Future scenarios and action strategies]. Revista Española De Sociología, 32(4), a184. DOI: 10.22325/fes/res.2023.184CárdenasJ. (2023). Inteligencia artificial, investigación y revisión por pares: escenarios futuros y estrategias de acción [Artificial intelligence, research, and peer review: Future scenarios and action strategies]. Revista Española De Sociología, 32(4), a184. DOI: 10.22325/fes/res.2023.184Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Caron, E., & van Eck, N. J. (2014). Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering. In E. Noyons (Ed.), 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. “Context counts: Pathways to master big data and little data” (pp. 79-86). Leiden: CWTS-Leiden University.CaronE.van EckN. J. (2014). Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering. In NoyonsE. (Ed.), 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. “Context counts: Pathways to master big data and little data” (pp. 79–86). Leiden: CWTS-Leiden University.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, S., Arsenault, C., & Larivière, V. (2015). Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary? Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 1034-1046.ChenS.ArsenaultC.LarivièreV. (2015). Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary?Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 1034–1046.Search in Google Scholar
Cole, S., Cole, J.R., & Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214/4523, 881-886. ColeS.ColeJ.R.SimonG. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214/4523, 881–886.Search in Google Scholar
D’Angelo, C.A., & Abramo, G. (2015). Publication rates in 192 research fields. In A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A.A.A. Salah, C. Sugimoto (Eds), Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference - (ISSI 2015) (pp. 909-919). Istanbul: Bogazici University Printhouse.D’AngeloC.A.AbramoG. (2015). Publication rates in 192 research fields. In SalahA.TontaY.SalahA.A.A.SugimotoC. (Eds), Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference - (ISSI 2015) (pp. 909–919). Istanbul: Bogazici University Printhouse.Search in Google Scholar
de Winter, J. (2024). Can ChatGPT be used to predict citation counts, readership, and social media interaction? An exploration among 2222 scientific abstracts. Scientometrics, 129, 2469-2487.de WinterJ. (2024). Can ChatGPT be used to predict citation counts, readership, and social media interaction? An exploration among 2222 scientific abstracts. Scientometrics, 129, 2469–2487.Search in Google Scholar
Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), 4171-4186.DevlinJ.ChangM.W.LeeK.ToutanovaK. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), 4171–4186.Search in Google Scholar
Dickersin, K., Min, Y., & Meinert, C.L. (1992). Factors influencing publication of research results: Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA, 267(3), 374-378.DickersinK.MinY.MeinertC.L. (1992). Factors influencing publication of research results: Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA, 267(3), 374–378.Search in Google Scholar
Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861-873.DidegahF.ThelwallM. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861–873.Search in Google Scholar
Elgendi, M. (2019). Characteristics of a highly cited article: A machine learning perspective. IEEE Access, 7, 87977-87986.ElgendiM. (2019). Characteristics of a highly cited article: A machine learning perspective. IEEE Access, 7, 87977–87986.Search in Google Scholar
Fox, C. W., Paine, C. T., & Sauterey, B. (2016). Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals. Ecology and Evolution, 6(21), 7717-7726.FoxC. W.PaineC. T.SautereyB. (2016). Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals. Ecology and Evolution, 6(21), 7717–7726.Search in Google Scholar
Fu, L. D., & Aliferis, C. (2008). Models for predicting and explaining citation count of biomedical articles. In AMIA Annual symposium proceedings (Vol. 2008, p. 222). American Medical Informatics Association.FuL. D.AliferisC. (2008). Models for predicting and explaining citation count of biomedical articles. In AMIA Annual symposium proceedings (Vol. 2008, p. 222). American Medical Informatics Association.Search in Google Scholar
Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., & Harnad, S. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PloS ONE, 5(10), e13636.GargouriY.HajjemC.LarivièreV.GingrasY.CarrL.BrodyT.HarnadS. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PloS ONE, 5(10), e13636.Search in Google Scholar
Glänzel, W., & de Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75-89.GlänzelW.de LangeC. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75–89.Search in Google Scholar
Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193GlänzelW.MoedH. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193Search in Google Scholar
Grant, J., Brutscher, P. B., Kirk, S. E., Butler, L., & Wooding, S. (2010). Capturing Research Impacts: A Review of International Practice. Documented Briefing. Rand Corporation. www.rand.org/pubs/documented_ briefings/DB578.htmlGrantJ.BrutscherP. B.KirkS. E.ButlerL.WoodingS. (2010). Capturing Research Impacts: A Review of International Practice. Documented Briefing. Rand Corporation. www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB578.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Hanson, M.A., Gómez Barreiro, P., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2023). The strain on scientific publishing. arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.15884.HansonM.A.Gómez BarreiroP.CrosettoP.BrockingtonD. (2023). The strain on scientific publishing. arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.15884.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Heßler, N., & Ziegler, A. (2022). Evidence-based recommendations for increasing the citation frequency of original articles. Scientometrics, 127, 3367-3381.HeßlerN.ZieglerA. (2022). Evidence-based recommendations for increasing the citation frequency of original articles. Scientometrics, 127, 3367–3381.Search in Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44, 193-215.HicksD. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44, 193–215.Search in Google Scholar
Himani, S., Kumar, M. H., Enduri, M. K., Begum, S. S., Rageswari, G., & Anamalamudi, S. (2022). A comparative study on machine learning based prediction of citations of articles. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (2022), 1819-1824. DOI: 10.1109/ICOEI53556.2022.9777184.HimaniS.KumarM. H.EnduriM. K.BegumS. S.RageswariG.AnamalamudiS. (2022). A comparative study on machine learning based prediction of citations of articles. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (2022), 1819–1824. DOI: 10.1109/ICOEI53556.2022.9777184.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Hurley, L. A., Ogier, A. L., & Torvik, V. I. (2013). Deconstructing the collaborative impact: Article and author characteristics that influence citation count. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 1-10.HurleyL. A.OgierA. L.TorvikV. I. (2013). Deconstructing the collaborative impact: Article and author characteristics that influence citation count. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 1–10.Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, J., He, D., & Ni, C. (2013). The correlations between article citation and references’ impact measures: What can we learn? Proceedings of the American society for information science and technology, 50(1), 1-4. DOI: 10.1002/meet.14505001162JiangJ.HeD.NiC. (2013). The correlations between article citation and references’ impact measures: What can we learn?Proceedings of the American society for information science and technology, 50(1), 1–4. DOI: 10.1002/meet.14505001162Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Kirman, C.R., Simon, T.W., & Hays, S.M. (2019). Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 103, 73-85.KirmanC.R.SimonT.W.HaysS.M. (2019). Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 103, 73–85.Search in Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The Manufacture of knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Knorr-CetinaK. D. (1981). The Manufacture of knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1991). Merton sociology of science: the first and the last sociology of science. Contemporary Sociology, 20(4), 522-526.Knorr-CetinaK. D. (1991). Merton sociology of science: the first and the last sociology of science. Contemporary Sociology, 20(4), 522–526.Search in Google Scholar
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024a). Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 4-12.KoushaK.ThelwallM. (2024a). Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 4–12.Search in Google Scholar
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024b). Factors associating with or predicting more cited or higher quality journal articles: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(3), 15-44.KoushaK.ThelwallM. (2024b). Factors associating with or predicting more cited or higher quality journal articles: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(3), 15–44.Search in Google Scholar
Langham-Putrow, A., Bakker, C., & Riegelman, A. (2021). Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles. PLoS ONE, 16(6): e0253129. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253129Langham-PutrowA.BakkerC.RiegelmanA. (2021). Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles. PLoS ONE, 16(6): e0253129. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253129Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Lansingh, V.C., & Carter, M.J. (2009). Does open access in ophthalmology affect how articles are subsequently cited in research?. Ophthalmology, 116(8), 1425-31.LansinghV.C.CarterM.J. (2009). Does open access in ophthalmology affect how articles are subsequently cited in research?. Ophthalmology, 116(8), 1425–31.Search in Google Scholar
Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinary and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126-131.LarivièreV.GingrasY. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinary and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126–131.Search in Google Scholar
Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: An analysis of Quebec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483-498. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0369-yLarivièreV.Vignola-GagnéE.VilleneuveC.GélinasP.GingrasY. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: An analysis of Quebec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483–498. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0369-yOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London:Sage.LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London:Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.LeeC.J.SugimotoC.R.ZhangG.CroninB. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.Search in Google Scholar
Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macro-level study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1973-1984.LevittJ. M.ThelwallM. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macro-level study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1973–1984.Search in Google Scholar
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Cao, H., Wang, B., Ding, D., Yang, X., & Zou, J. (2023). Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01783LiangW.ZhangY.CaoH.WangB.DingD.YangX.ZouJ. (2023). Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01783Search in Google Scholar
Liu, J., Chen, H., Liu, Z., Bu, Y., & Gu, W. (2022). Non-linearity between referencing behavior and citation impact: A large-scale, discipline-level analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 16(3), 101318.LiuJ.ChenH.LiuZ.BuY.GuW. (2022). Non-linearity between referencing behavior and citation impact: A large-scale, discipline-level analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 16(3), 101318.Search in Google Scholar
Lundberg, S.M., & Lee, S.I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4765-4774.LundbergS.M.LeeS.I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4765–4774.Search in Google Scholar
Mammola, S., Fontaneto, D., Martínez, A., & Chichorro, F. (2021). Impact of the reference list features on the number of citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 785-799.MammolaS.FontanetoD.MartínezA.ChichorroF. (2021). Impact of the reference list features on the number of citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 785–799.Search in Google Scholar
Mammola, S., Piano, E., Doretto, A., Caprio, E., & Chamberlain, D. (2022). Measuring the influence of non-scientific features on citations. Scientometrics, 127(7), 4123-4137.MammolaS.PianoE.DorettoA.CaprioE.ChamberlainD. (2022). Measuring the influence of non-scientific features on citations. Scientometrics, 127(7), 4123–4137.Search in Google Scholar
Memon, A. R. (2020). Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Korean medical science, 35(27), e217.MemonA. R. (2020). Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Korean medical science, 35(27), e217.Search in Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). Priorities in scientific discovery. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 286-324). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.MertonR. K. (1973). Priorities in scientific discovery. In MertonR. K. (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 286–324). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Miettinen, R., Tuunainen, J., & Esko, T. (2015). Epistemological, artefactual and interactional-institutional foundations of social impact of academic research. Minerva, 53, 257-77.MiettinenR.TuunainenJ.EskoT. (2015). Epistemological, artefactual and interactional-institutional foundations of social impact of academic research. Minerva, 53, 257–77.Search in Google Scholar
Milat, A.J., Bauman, A.E., & Redman, S. (2015). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13, 18.MilatA.J.BaumanA.E.RedmanS. (2015). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13, 18.Search in Google Scholar
Mulkay, M. (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15(4-5), 637-656.MulkayM. (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15(4-5), 637–656.Search in Google Scholar
Narin, F., & Whitlow, E.S. (1990). Measurement of scientific cooperation and co-authorship in CEC-related areas of science (Vol. 1). Publications Office of the European Union.NarinF.WhitlowE.S. (1990). Measurement of scientific cooperation and co-authorship in CEC-related areas of science (Vol. 1). Publications Office of the European Union.Search in Google Scholar
OECD/Eurostat (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. Luxembourg: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264304604-enOECD/Eurostat (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. Luxembourg: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264304604-enOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar
Özkent, Y. (2022). Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations. PLoS ONE, 17(2), e0263725. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263725.ÖzkentY. (2022). Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations. PLoS ONE, 17(2), e0263725. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263725.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21-32.PenfieldT.BakerM. J.ScobleR.WykesM. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21–32.Search in Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2022). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (4th ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Rabe-HeskethS.SkrondalA. (2022). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (4th ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Search in Google Scholar
Reale, E., Barbara, A., & Costantini, A. (2007). Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: Lessons from the Italian experience. Research Evaluation, 16(3), 216-228.RealeE.BarbaraA.CostantiniA. (2007). Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: Lessons from the Italian experience. Research Evaluation, 16(3), 216–228.Search in Google Scholar
Rhoten, D., & Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36(1), 56-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.001RhotenD.PfirmanS. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36(1), 56–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.001Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). “Why should I trust you?”: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1135-1144.RibeiroM. T.SinghS.GuestrinC. (2016). “Why should I trust you?”: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1135–1144.Search in Google Scholar
Rinia, E.J., van Leeuwen, Th.N., van Vuren, H.G., & van Raan, A.F.J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer-review criteria, evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27(1), 95-107.RiniaE.J.van LeeuwenTh.N.van VurenH.G.van RaanA.F.J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer-review criteria, evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27(1), 95–107.Search in Google Scholar
Rosenkrantz, A. B., Doshi, A. M., Ginocchio, L. A., & Aphinyanaphongs, Y. (2016). Use of a machine-learning method for predicting highly cited articles within general radiology journals. Academic Radiology, 23(12), 1573-1581.RosenkrantzA. B.DoshiA. M.GinocchioL. A.AphinyanaphongsY. (2016). Use of a machine-learning method for predicting highly cited articles within general radiology journals. Academic Radiology, 23(12), 1573–1581.Search in Google Scholar
Rossi, M. J., & Brand, J. C. (2020). Journal article titles impact their citation rates. Arthroscopy, 36, 2025-2029.RossiM. J.BrandJ. C. (2020). Journal article titles impact their citation rates. Arthroscopy, 36, 2025–2029.Search in Google Scholar
Ruan, X., Zhu, Y., Li, J., & Cheng, Y. (2020). Predicting the citation counts of individual papers via a BP neural network. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101039.RuanX.ZhuY.LiJ.ChengY. (2020). Predicting the citation counts of individual papers via a BP neural network. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101039.Search in Google Scholar
Sanfilippo, P., Hewitt, A. W., & Mackey, D. A. (2018). Plurality in multidisciplinary research: multiple institutional affiliations are associated with increased citations. PeerJ, 6, e5664. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5664SanfilippoP.HewittA. W.MackeyD. A. (2018). Plurality in multidisciplinary research: multiple institutional affiliations are associated with increased citations. PeerJ, 6, e5664. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5664Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Schroter, S., Weber, W. E. J., Loder, E., Wilkinson, J., & Kirkham, J. J. (2022). Evaluation of editors’ abilities to predict the citation potential of research manuscripts submitted to the BMJ: A cohort study. British Medical Journal, 379. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-073880.SchroterS.WeberW. E. J.LoderE.WilkinsonJ.KirkhamJ. J. (2022). Evaluation of editors’ abilities to predict the citation potential of research manuscripts submitted to the BMJ: A cohort study. British Medical Journal, 379. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-073880.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Schulz, R., Barnett, A., Bernard, R., Brown, N. J., Byrne, J. A., Eckmann, P., & Weissgerber, T. L. (2022). Is the future of peer review automated?. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), 203. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6SchulzR.BarnettA.BernardR.BrownN. J.ByrneJ. A.EckmannP.WeissgerberT. L. (2022). Is the future of peer review automated?. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), 203. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Sivadas, E., & Johnson, M.S. (2015). Relationships between article references and subsequent citations of marketing journal articles. In Revolution in marketing: Market driving changes: Proceedings of the 2006 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 199-205). Cham: Springer International Publishing.SivadasE.JohnsonM.S. (2015). Relationships between article references and subsequent citations of marketing journal articles. In Revolution in marketing: Market driving changes: Proceedings of the 2006 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 199–205). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Sivertsen, G. (2017). Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1-6.SivertsenG. (2017). Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1–6.Search in Google Scholar
Smit, J. P., & Hessels, L. K. (2021). The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: A review of societal impact assessment methods. Research Evaluation, 30(3), 323-335.SmitJ. P.HesselsL. K. (2021). The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: A review of societal impact assessment methods. Research Evaluation, 30(3), 323–335.Search in Google Scholar
StataCorp. (2021). Stata: Release 17 [Statistical software]. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.StataCorp. (2021). Stata: Release 17 [Statistical software]. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.Search in Google Scholar
Stremersch, S., Camacho, N., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2015). Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1), 64-77.StremerschS.CamachoN.VannesteS.VerniersI. (2015). Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1), 64–77.Search in Google Scholar
Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A.S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195-1225.TahamtanI.AfsharA.S.AhamdzadehK. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225.Search in Google Scholar
Talaat, F.M., & Gamel, S.A. (2023). Predicting the impact of no. of authors on no. of citations of research publications based on neural networks. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14, 8499-8508. DOI: 10.1007/s12652-022-03882-1TalaatF.M.GamelS.A. (2023). Predicting the impact of no. of authors on no. of citations of research publications based on neural networks. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14, 8499–8508. DOI: 10.1007/s12652-022-03882-1Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. (2024). Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality? Journal of Data and Information Science, 9(2), 1-21. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2024-0013ThelwallM. (2024). Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality?Journal of Data and Information Science, 9(2), 1–21. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2024-0013Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Thelwall, M., Kousha, K, Abdoli, M., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Wilson, P., & Levitt, J. (2023). Why are co-authored academic articles more cited: Higher quality or larger audience? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(7), 791-810. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24755ThelwallM.KoushaKAbdoliM.StuartE.MakitaM.WilsonP.LevittJ. (2023). Why are co-authored academic articles more cited: Higher quality or larger audience?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(7), 791–810. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24755Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Abdoli, M., Wilson, P., & Levitt, J.M. (2023). Does the perceived quality of interdisciplinary research vary between fields? Journal of Documentation, 79(6), 1514-1531. DOI: 10.1108/JD-01-2023-0012ThelwallM.KoushaK.StuartE.MakitaM.AbdoliM.WilsonP.LevittJ.M. (2023). Does the perceived quality of interdisciplinary research vary between fields?Journal of Documentation, 79(6), 1514–1531. DOI: 10.1108/JD-01-2023-0012Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Traag, V.A. (2021). Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 496-504.TraagV.A. (2021). Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 496–504.Search in Google Scholar
Uhly, K. M., Visser, L. M., & Zippel, K. S. (2015). Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 760-782. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1072151UhlyK. M.VisserL. M.ZippelK. S. (2015). Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 760–782. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1072151Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
van Lent, M., Overbeke, J., & Out, H.J. (2014). Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e104846.van LentM.OverbekeJ.OutH.J. (2014). Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e104846.Search in Google Scholar
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007WaltmanL. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Waltman, L., Kaltenbrunner, W., Pinfield, S., & Woods, H.B. (2023). How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 334-347.WaltmanL.KaltenbrunnerW.PinfieldS.WoodsH.B. (2023). How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 334–347.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851-872. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9WangJ. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851–872. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127-132. DOI: 10.1126/science.1237825WangD.SongC.BarabásiA. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127–132. DOI: 10.1126/science.1237825Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.WangJ.ThijsB.GlänzelW. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, X., Dworkin, J.D., Zhou, D., Stiso, J., Falk, E.B., Bassett, D.S., & Lydon-Staley, D.M. (2021). Gendered citation practices in the field of communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 134-153.WangX.DworkinJ.D.ZhouD.StisoJ.FalkE.B.BassettD.S.Lydon-StaleyD.M. (2021). Gendered citation practices in the field of communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 134–153.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555-564. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0WangX.LiuC.MaoW.FangZ. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555–564. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Wilsdon, J. (2016). The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.WilsdonJ. (2016). The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., Han, Q. L., & Tang, Y. (2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122-1136.WuT.HeS.LiuJ.SunS.LiuK.HanQ. L.TangY. (2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122–1136.Search in Google Scholar
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039.WuchtyS.JonesB. F.UzziB. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.Search in Google Scholar
Xie, J., Gong, K., Cheng, Y., & Ke, Q. (2019). The correlation between paper length and citations: A meta-analysis. Scientometrics, 118(3), 763-786.XieJ.GongK.ChengY.KeQ. (2019). The correlation between paper length and citations: A meta-analysis. Scientometrics, 118(3), 763–786.Search in Google Scholar
Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., & D’Este, P. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10(8). DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0135095Yegros-YegrosA.RafolsI.D’EsteP. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10(8). DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0135095Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Yu, X., Meng, Z., Qin, D., Shen, C., & Hua, F. (2022). The long-term influence of open access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis. Journal of Dentistry, 119, 104067. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104067.YuX.MengZ.QinD.ShenC.HuaF. (2022). The long-term influence of open access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis. Journal of Dentistry, 119, 104067. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104067.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Zhao, X., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Reviewer assignment algorithms for peer review automation: A survey. Information Processing & Management, 59(5), 103028.ZhaoX.ZhangY. (2022). Reviewer assignment algorithms for peer review automation: A survey. Information Processing & Management, 59(5), 103028.Search in Google Scholar
Zimmer, A., Krimmer, H., & Stallmann, F. (2006). Winners among losers: Zur feminisierung der Deutschen universitäten [Winners among losers: On the feminization of German universities]. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 28(4), 30-56.ZimmerA.KrimmerH.StallmannF. (2006). Winners among losers: Zur feminisierung der Deutschen universitäten [Winners among losers: On the feminization of German universities]. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 28(4), 30–56.Search in Google Scholar