2013
DOI: 10.1002/meet.14505001070
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: It is well known that collaborative papers tend to receive more citations than solo-authored papers. Here we try to identify the subtle factors of this collaborative effect by analyzing metadata and citation counts for co-authored papers in the biomedical domain, after accounting for attributes known to be strong predictors of citation count. Article-level metadata were gathered from 98,000 PubMed article records categorized with the term breast neoplasm, a topic offering longevity and relevance across biomedi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(37 reference statements)
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This phenomenon has also been studied by other researchers [53][54]. Sooryamoorthy in fact states that it is now commonly accepted that co-authorship leads to higher citation rates [55].…”
Section: Can Citation Be Associated With Collaboration?mentioning
confidence: 67%
“…This phenomenon has also been studied by other researchers [53][54]. Sooryamoorthy in fact states that it is now commonly accepted that co-authorship leads to higher citation rates [55].…”
Section: Can Citation Be Associated With Collaboration?mentioning
confidence: 67%
“…An analysis by Skilton (2009), based on a sample of works in top-WoS natural science journals, stresses the fundamental role of 'diversity' in disciplinary backgrounds within the co-author team, and identifies the dominance of 'intellectual' over 'social' capital in citation behavior. Recently, scholars have illustrated how the effect of collaboration on citations tends to diminish if the analysis controls for subtle effects in the composition of the co-author networks and the articles themselves (Hurley et al, 2013;Didegah and Thelwall, 2013b). Finally, we note the correlation between citations received and author numbers could be traced in part to the natural increase in self-citation when works are by more authors (Leimu & Koricheva, 2005) and potentially from distinct institutions (Herbertz, 1995).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…In related works [3739], the authors have invented new similarity metrics to compare biomedical literature; they can be used to enhance the accuracy of the Author-ity database. Although this work has been highly influential and has been used to prepare datasets to analyse collaboration networks of scientists [4042], scientists’ research strategy [43], global mobility patterns of researchers [44] and a country’s scientific output [45], there are some shortcomings in their approach: (1) name synonymy problem is not adequately addressed; (2) the training corpus is not manually generated and hence, not error-free; (3) up-to-date disambiguated dataset is not available online (Author-ity 2009 is the latest version which disambiguates author names across all citations in PubMed and MEDLINE till ~ September 2008); (4) it is unclear how to adapt it for efficient incremental disambiguation as PubMed keeps growing fast; and (5) there are many magic numbers in the AND algorithm that are heuristically set and may not generalise well as database is updated.…”
Section: Detailed Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%