IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v7y2013i2p478-486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact and structural features of meta-analytical studies, standard articles and reviews in psychology: Similarities and differences

Author

Listed:
  • Barrios, Maite
  • Guilera, Georgina
  • Gómez-Benito, Juana

Abstract

Meta-analysis refers to the statistical methods used in research synthesis for combining and integrating results from individual studies. In this regard meta-analytical studies share with narrative reviews the goal of synthesizing the scientific literature on a particular topic, while as in the case of standard articles they present new results. This study aims to identify the potential similarities and differences between meta-analytical studies, reviews and standard articles as regards their impact and structural features in the field of psychology. To this end a random sample of 335 examples of each type of document were selected from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. The results showed that meta-analytical studies receive more citations than do both reviews and standard articles. All three types of documents showed a similar pattern in terms of institutional collaboration, while reviews and meta-analytical studies had a similar number of authors per document. However, reviews had a greater number of references and pages than did meta-analytical studies. The implications of these results for the scientific community are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Barrios, Maite & Guilera, Georgina & Gómez-Benito, Juana, 2013. "Impact and structural features of meta-analytical studies, standard articles and reviews in psychology: Similarities and differences," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 478-486.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:478-486
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175115771300014X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.012?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Georgina Guilera & Maite Barrios & Juana Gómez-Benito, 2013. "Meta-analysis in psychology: a bibliometric study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 943-954, March.
    2. Ángel Borrego & Maite Barrios & Anna Villarroya & Candela Ollé, 2010. "Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: a gender perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 93-101, April.
    3. González-Albo, Borja & Bordons, María, 2011. "Articles vs. proceedings papers: Do they differ in research relevance and impact? A case study in the Library and Information Science field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 369-381.
    4. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Journal impact measures in bibliometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 171-193, February.
    5. Nick Haslam & Lauren Ban & Leah Kaufmann & Stephen Loughnan & Kim Peters & Jennifer Whelan & Sam Wilson, 2008. "What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 169-185, July.
    6. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2013. "Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 23-34, January.
    7. Donald deB. Beaver, 2004. "Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 399-408, August.
    8. Anne Sigogneau, 2000. "An Analysis of Document Types Published in Journals Related to Physics: Proceeding Papers Recorded in the Science Citation Index Database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(3), pages 589-604, March.
    9. Vieira, E.S. & Gomes, J.A.N.F., 2010. "Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13.
    10. W Glänzel & E J Rinia & M G M Brocken, 1995. "A bibliometric study of highly cited European physics papers in the 80s," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 113-122, August.
    11. Dag W Aksnes, 2003. "Characteristics of highly cited papers," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 159-170, December.
    12. Lutz Bornmann & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2007. "Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(8), pages 1100-1107, June.
    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. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.
    2. Tove Faber Frandsen & Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2023. "Defining the unscholarly publication: a bibliometric study of uncited and barely cited publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1337-1350, February.
    3. Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho & John S. Liu & Kerr C.-T. Chang, 2017. "To include or not: the role of review papers in citation-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 65-76, January.
    4. Chao Zhang & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1177-1197, November.
    5. Martin Grančay & Jolita Vveinhardt & Ērika Šumilo, 2017. "Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1813-1837, June.
    6. Paul Donner, 2017. "Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 219-236, October.
    7. Ogawa, Takaya & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2015. "Assessing the industrial opportunity of academic research with patent relatedness: A case study on polymer electrolyte fuel cells," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 469-475.
    8. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 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, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 746-761.
    9. Laura Sheble, 2017. "Macro‐level diffusion of a methodological knowledge innovation: Research synthesis methods, 1972–2011," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2693-2708, 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. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    3. 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.
    4. Copiello, Sergio, 2019. "Peer and neighborhood effects: Citation analysis using a spatial autoregressive model and pseudo-spatial data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 238-254.
    5. Zhang, Mengya & Zhang, Gupeng & Liu, Yun & Zhai, Xiaorong & Han, Xinying, 2020. "Scientists’ genders and international academic collaboration: An empirical study of Chinese universities and research institutes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    6. Tove Faber Frandsen & Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2023. "Defining the unscholarly publication: a bibliometric study of uncited and barely cited publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1337-1350, February.
    7. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    8. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 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, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 746-761.
    9. Hanssen, Thor-Erik Sandberg & Jørgensen, Finn, 2015. "The value of experience in research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 16-24.
    10. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    11. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    12. Thed Leeuwen & Rodrigo Costas & Clara Calero-Medina & Martijn Visser, 2013. "The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 817-828, May.
    13. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    14. Frandsen, Tove Faber & Jacobsen, Rasmus Højbjerg & Wallin, Johan A. & Brixen, Kim & Ousager, Jakob, 2015. "Gender differences in scientific performance: A bibliometric matching analysis of Danish health sciences Graduates," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 1007-1017.
    15. Thomas Heinze, 2013. "Creative accomplishments in science: definition, theoretical considerations, examples from science history, and bibliometric findings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 927-940, June.
    16. Mingyang Wang & Guang Yu & Shuang An & Daren Yu, 2012. "Discovery of factors influencing citation impact based on a soft fuzzy rough set model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 635-644, December.
    17. Wang, Mingyang & Yu, Guang & Xu, Jianzhong & He, Huixin & Yu, Daren & An, Shuang, 2012. "Development a case-based classifier for predicting highly cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 586-599.
    18. Liu, Meijun & Jaiswal, Ajay & Bu, Yi & Min, Chao & Yang, Sijie & Liu, Zhibo & Acuña, Daniel & Ding, Ying, 2022. "Team formation and team impact: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    19. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 203-216.
    20. Carolin Michels & Jun-Ying Fu, 2014. "Systematic analysis of coverage and usage of conference proceedings in web of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 307-327, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Meta-analysis; Review; Citations; Impact; Document type;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    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:eee:infome:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:478-486. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    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.