IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v94y2013i2d10.1007_s11192-012-0822-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do citations and impact factors relate to the real numbers in publications? A case study of citation rates, impact, and effect sizes in ecology and evolutionary biology

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J. Lortie

    (York University)

  • Lonnie W. Aarssen

    (Queen’s University)

  • Amber E. Budden

    (National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis)

  • Roosa Leimu

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

Metrics of success or impact in academia may do more harm than good. To explore the value of citations, the reported efficacy of treatments in ecology and evolution from close to 1,500 publications was examined. If citation behavior is rationale, i.e. studies that successfully applied a treatment and detected greater biological effects are cited more frequently, then we predict that larger effect sizes increases study relative citation rates. This prediction was not supported. Citations are likely thus a poor proxy for the quantitative merit of a given treatment in ecology and evolutionary biology—unlike evidence-based medicine wherein the success of a drug or treatment on human health is one of the critical attributes. Impact factor of the journal is a broader metric, as one would expect, but it also unrelated to the mean effect sizes for the respective populations of publications. The interpretation by the authors of the treatment effects within each study differed depending on whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. Significantly larger effect sizes were associated with rejection of a hypothesis. This suggests that only the most rigorous studies reporting negative results are published or that authors set a higher burden of proof in rejecting a hypothesis. The former is likely true to a major extent since only 29 % of the studies rejected the hypotheses tested. These findings indicate that the use of citations to identify important papers in this specific discipline—at least in terms of designing a new experiment or contrasting treatments—is of limited value.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J. Lortie & Lonnie W. Aarssen & Amber E. Budden & Roosa Leimu, 2013. "Do citations and impact factors relate to the real numbers in publications? A case study of citation rates, impact, and effect sizes in ecology and evolutionary biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 675-682, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0822-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0822-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0822-6
    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/s11192-012-0822-6?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. Liran Einav & Leeat Yariv, 2006. "What's in a Surname? The Effects of Surname Initials on Academic Success," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 175-187, Winter.
    2. Henry Small, 2004. "Why authors think their papers are highly cited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 305-316, August.
    3. Aksnes, Dag W. & Rip, Arie, 2009. "Researchers' perceptions of citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 895-905, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry & Norrin Halilem, 2015. "What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 489-530, May.
    3. Christopher Carroll, 2016. "Measuring academic research impact: creating a citation profile using the conceptual framework for implementation fidelity as a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1329-1340, November.

    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. Collado, M. Dolores & Ortuño Ortin, Ignacio & Romeu, Andrés, 2008. "Vertical Transmission of Consumption Behavior and the Distribution of Surnames," UMUFAE Economics Working Papers 2651, DIGITUM. Universidad de Murcia.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2012. "An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 700-711.
    3. Debraj Ray & Arthur Robson, 2018. "Certified Random: A New Order for Coauthorship," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 489-520, February.
    4. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    5. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    6. Matthias Weber, 2016. "The Effects of Listing Authors in Alphabetical Order: A survey of the Empirical Evidence," Bank of Lithuania Occasional Paper Series 12, Bank of Lithuania.
    7. Jonathan Meer & Harvey S. Rosen, 2008. "The ABCs of Charitable Solicitation," Working Papers 1057, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    8. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 821-833, September.
    9. Jian Zhang & Michael S. Vogeley & Chaomei Chen, 2011. "Scientometrics of big science: a case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 1-14, January.
    10. Daniel Garcia & Joshua Sherman, 2015. "Norms and Team Formation: Evidence from Research Partnerships," Vienna Economics Papers vie1511, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    11. Saltuk Özerturk & Huseyin Yildirim, 2019. "Credit Attribution and Collaborative Work," Departmental Working Papers 1907, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    12. Zhai, Li & Yan, Xiangbin, 2022. "A directed collaboration network for exploring the order of scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    13. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    14. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    15. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    16. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2022. "Gender Differences in Peer Recognition by Economists," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(5), pages 1937-1971, September.
    17. Mirjam van Praag & Bernard M.S. van Praag, 2006. "First Author Determinants: An Empirical Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-045/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Jurajda, Stepán & Münich, Daniel, 2010. "Admission to selective schools, alphabetically," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 1100-1109, December.
    19. Meer, Jonathan & Rosen, Harvey S., 2011. "The ABCs of charitable solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 363-371.
    20. Mr. Shekhar Aiyar & Mr. Rodney Ramcharan, 2010. "What Can International Cricket Teach Us About the Role of Luck in Labor Markets?," IMF Working Papers 2010/225, International Monetary Fund.

    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:94:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0822-6. 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.