Back

Correlates of time to first citation in ecology and taxonomy

Guedes, J. J. M.; Melo, I.; Bione, I.; Nunes, M.

2023-03-18 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2023.03.16.532892 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Several metrics exists to evaluate the impact of publications and researchers, but most are based on citation counts, which usually fail to capture the temporal aspect of citations. Time to first citation represents a useful metric for research evaluation, and informs the speed at which scientific knowledge is disseminated through the scientific community. Understanding which factors affect such metrics is important as they impact resource allocation and career progression, besides influencing knowledge promotion across disciplines. Many ecological works rely on species identity, which is the coin of taxonomy. Despite its importance, taxonomy is a discipline in crisis lacking staff, funds and prestige, which ultimately may affect the evaluation and dissemination of taxonomic works. We used a time-to-event analysis to investigate whether taxonomic, socioeconomic, and scientometric factors influence first citation speed across hundreds of ecological and taxonomic articles. Time to first citation differed greatly between these areas. Ecological studies were first cited much faster than taxonomic studies. Multitaxa articles received first citations earlier than studies focused on single major taxonomic groups. Article length and h-index among authors were negatively correlated with time to first citation, while the number of authors, number of countries, and Gross Domestic Product was unimportant. Knowledge dissemination is faster for lengthy, multitaxa, and ecological articles relative to their respective counterparts, as well as for articles with highly prolific authors. We stress that using several unrelated metrics is desirable when evaluating research from different-and even related-disciplines, particularly in the context of professional progression and grant allocation.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.1%
2
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.1%
3
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.2%
6
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
7
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.9%
8
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
9
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
10
Frontiers in Marine Science
55 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.5%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.5%
12
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
13
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 36%
2.0%
15
FEBS Letters
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
16
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
19
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
20
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
21
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
22
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%