IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v120y2019i3d10.1007_s11192-019-03174-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Response to Dr. Copiello’s comments on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts”

Author

Listed:
  • Qianjin Zong

    (South China Normal University)

Abstract

This letter is a response to Dr. Copiello’s comments on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts”. Citation counts (with self-citations and without self-citations) of the control group and the experimental group were obtained manually via Scopus on 2nd June 2019. A negative binomial regression model was employed to examine the data. Literature studies were conducted to clarify motivations for creating video abstracts. The results of the current study are as followings. (1) Articles with video abstract (experimental group) compared to articles without video abstract (control group), while holding the other variables (number of authors, etc.) constant in the model, are expected to have a rate 1.241 times greater for citation counts without self-citations (vs. a rate 1.216 times greater for citation counts with self-citations). The reason is that the self-cited rate of the control group is slightly higher than the self-cited rate of the experimental group. (2) Motivations behind the behavior of creating video abstracts are not easily revealed through quantitative bibliometric methods. Instead, content (context) analysis, questionnaire surveys and interviewing scientists are more appropriate methods. Our literature studies reveal that the main motivations for authors to create video abstracts are helping readers to get a quick overview on an article, reaching out to a broader audience, improving an article’s visibility and presenting complex topics. Moreover, in general, authors are more likely to publish those articles they believe are of outstanding quality (or best representative of their research activities) in more prestigious journals rather than New Journal of Physics.

Suggested Citation

  • Qianjin Zong, 2019. "Response to Dr. Copiello’s comments on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1499-1504, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:120:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03174-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03174-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03174-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-019-03174-0?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. Alexander N. Larcombe & Sasha C. Voss, 2011. "Self-citation: comparison between Radiology, European Radiology and Radiology for 1997–1998," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 347-356, May.
    2. Wen-Yau Cathy Lin & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2012. "The relationship between co-authorship, currency of references and author self-citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 343-360, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. Leeuwen & María Bordons, 2010. "Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 517-537, March.
    5. Ken Hyland, 2003. "Self‐citation and self‐reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(3), pages 251-259, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.
    2. Rabishankar Giri & Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, 2021. "Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2189-2208, March.
    3. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    4. Ibrahim Shehatta & Abdullah M. Al-Rubaish, 2019. "Impact of country self-citations on bibliometric indicators and ranking of most productive countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 775-791, August.
    5. Gita Ghiasi & Catherine Beaudry & Vincent Larivière & Carl St-Pierre & Andrea Schiffauerova & Matthew Harsh, 2021. "Who profits from the Canadian nanotechnology reward system? Implications for gender-responsible innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7937-7991, September.
    6. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2016. "A theoretical evaluation of Hirsch-type bibliometric indicators confronted with extreme self-citation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 552-566.
    7. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    8. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    9. Hui Li & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Same same but different: self-citations identified through Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2723-2732, September.
    10. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    11. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Rongchan Tuo & Jingshi Huang & Yang Yang, 2019. "The impact of video abstract on citation counts: evidence from a retrospective cohort study of New Journal of Physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1715-1727, June.
    12. Sánchez-Gil, Susana & Gorraiz, Juan & Melero-Fuentes, David, 2018. "Reference density trends in the major disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 42-58.
    13. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2017. "What we can learn from tweets linking to research papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 349-369, April.
    14. Shubhanshu Mishra & Brent D Fegley & Jana Diesner & Vetle I Torvik, 2018. "Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Petersen, Alexander M. & Pan, Raj K. & Pammolli, Fabio & Fortunato, Santo, 2019. "Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1855-1865.
    17. Watinee Suntara & Siriluck Usaha, 2013. "Research Article Abstracts in Two Related Disciplines: Rhetorical Variation between Linguistics and Applied Linguistics," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(2), pages 1-84, February.
    18. Gordana Budimir & Sophia Rahimeh & Sameh Tamimi & Primož Južnič, 2021. "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2249-2267, March.
    19. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Aberration of the citation," arabixiv.org gn8zb, Center for Open Science.
    20. Ajiferuke, Isola & Lu, Kun & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2011. "Who are the research disciples of an author? Examining publication recitation and oeuvre citation exhaustivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 292-302.

    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:spr:scient:v:120:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03174-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.