Scientometric correlates of high-quality reference lists in ecological papers
Mammola, S.; Martinez, A.; Fontaneto, D.; Chichorro, F.
Show abstract
It is said that the quality of a scientific publication is as good as the science it cites, but the properties of high-quality reference lists have never been numerically quantified. We examined seven numerical characteristics of reference lists of 50,878 primary research articles published in 17 ecological journals between 1997 and 2017. Over this 20-years period, there have been significant changes in reference lists’ properties. On average, more recent ecological papers have longer reference lists, cite more high Impact Factor papers, and fewer non-journal publications. Furthermore, we show that highly cited papers across the ecology literature have longer reference lists, cite more recent and impactful papers, and account for more self-citations. Conversely, the proportion of ‘classic’ papers and non-journal publications cited, as well as the temporal range of the reference list, have no significant influence on articles’ citations. From this analysis, we distill a recipe for crafting impactful reference lists.View Full Text
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project 90%
- Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities 87%
- A cross-sectional audit and survey of Open Science and Data Sharing practices at The Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital 87%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.