IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v67y2016i5p1233-1244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does research with statistics have more impact? The citation rank advantage of structural equation modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Thelwall
  • Paul Wilson

Abstract

Statistics are essential to many areas of research and individual statistical techniques may change the ways in which problems are addressed as well as the types of problems that can be tackled. Hence, specific techniques may tend to generate high‐impact findings within science. This article estimates the citation advantage of a technique by calculating the average citation rank of articles using it in the issue of the journal in which they were published. Applied to structural equation modeling (SEM) and four related techniques in 3 broad fields, the results show citation advantages that vary by technique and broad field. For example, SEM seems to be more influential in all broad fields than the 4 simpler methods, with one exception, and hence seems to be particularly worth adding to statistical curricula. In contrast, Pearson correlation apparently has the highest average impact in medicine but the least in psychology. In conclusion, the results suggest that the importance of a statistical technique may vary by discipline and that even simple techniques can help to generate high‐impact research in some contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Thelwall & Paul Wilson, 2016. "Does research with statistics have more impact? The citation rank advantage of structural equation modeling," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1233-1244, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:67:y:2016:i:5:p:1233-1244
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.23474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23474
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.23474?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Tobias Opthof, 2011. "Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1370-1381, July.
    2. Tai-Quan Peng & Jonathan J.H. Zhu, 2012. "Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(9), pages 1789-1803, September.
    3. Xuemei Li & Mike Thelwall & Dean Giustini, 2012. "Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 461-471, May.
    4. David W. Johnston & Marco Piatti & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Citation success over time: theory or empirics?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1023-1029, June.
    5. Liwen Vaughan & Debora Shaw, 2003. "Bibliographic and Web citations: What is the difference?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(14), pages 1313-1322, December.
    6. Hadas Shema & Judit Bar-Ilan & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(5), pages 1018-1027, May.
    7. Didegah, Fereshteh & Thelwall, Mike, 2013. "Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 861-873.
    8. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2011. "The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 275-291.
    9. Hoffman, Donna L. & Novak, Thomas P., 2009. "Flow Online: Lessons Learned and Future Prospects," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 23-34.
    10. Tai‐Quan Peng & Jonathan J.H. Zhu, 2012. "Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(9), pages 1789-1803, September.
    11. Hendrik P. Van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2001. "What makes a scientific article influential? The case of demographers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(3), pages 455-482, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    2. Hamid R. Jamali & Majid Nabavi & Saeid Asadi, 2018. "How video articles are cited, the case of JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1821-1839, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thelwall, Mike & Wilson, Paul, 2014. "Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 963-971.
    2. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Leonardo Grilli, 2024. "The role of non-scientific factors vis-à-vis the quality of publications in determining their scholarly impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 5003-5019, August.
    3. Elizabeth S. Vieira, 2023. "The influence of research collaboration on citation impact: the countries in the European Innovation Scoreboard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3555-3579, June.
    4. Basma Albanna & Julia Handl & Richard Heeks, 2021. "Publication outperformance among global South researchers: An analysis of individual-level and publication-level predictors of positive deviance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8375-8431, October.
    5. Fairclough, Ruth & Thelwall, Mike, 2015. "National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 845-859.
    6. Lipeng Fan & Yuefen Wang & Shengchun Ding & Binbin Qi, 2020. "Productivity trends and citation impact of different institutional collaboration patterns at the research units’ level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1179-1196, November.
    7. Martorell Cunil, Onofre & Otero González, Luis & Durán Santomil, Pablo & Mulet Forteza, Carlos, 2023. "How to accomplish a highly cited paper in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 263-272.
    9. Fan, Lingxu & Guo, Lei & Wang, Xinhua & Xu, Liancheng & Liu, Fangai, 2022. "Does the author’s collaboration mode lead to papers’ different citation impacts? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    10. Stefanie Ringelhan & Jutta Wollersheim & Isabell M Welpe, 2015. "I Like, I Cite? Do Facebook Likes Predict the Impact of Scientific Work?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Radhamany Sooryamoorthy, 2017. "Do types of collaboration change citation? A scientometric analysis of social science publications in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 379-400, April.
    12. Yifan Qian & Wenge Rong & Nan Jiang & Jie Tang & Zhang Xiong, 2017. "Citation regression analysis of computer science publications in different ranking categories and subfields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1351-1374, March.
    13. Amon, Julian & Hornik, Kurt, 2022. "Is it all bafflegab? – Linguistic and meta characteristics of research articles in prestigious economics journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    14. Yu Liu & Dan Lin & Xiujuan Xu & Shimin Shan & Quan Z. Sheng, 2018. "Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 823-837, March.
    15. Xianwen Wang & Zhichao Fang & Xiaoling Sun, 2016. "Usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science: a study on Web of Science usage count," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 917-926, November.
    16. Vanclay, Jerome K., 2013. "Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 265-271.
    17. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 529-541.
    18. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    19. Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 337-347, July.
    20. Yezhu Wang & Yundong Xie & Dong Wang & Lu Guo & Rongting Zhou, 2022. "Do cover papers get better citations and usage counts? An analysis of 42 journals in cell biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3793-3813, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:67:y:2016:i:5:p:1233-1244. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.