Predictors of citation rates and the problem of citation bias: a scoping review

Why was the study done? Within scientific research, it is important to cite previous research. This is done for specific reasons, including crediting earlier authors and providing a credible and trustworthy background for conducting the study. However, findings suggest that citations are not always chosen for their intended purpose. This is known as citation bias. What did the researchers do? The researchers searched for all existing studies evaluating predictors of citation rate, ie, how often is a specific study referred to by other researchers. They systematically mapped these studies to find out both the level of citation bias and the types of citation bias present in scientific health literature. To find these studies, the researchers searched four electronic databases and screened the reference lists of all included studies to be sure to include as many studies as possible. What did the researchers find? The researchers found a total of 165 studies that evaluated predictors of citation rate in no less than 786 analyses. However, the researchers found that the studies differed in the way they evaluated predictors of citation rate, as 78 studies (48%) evaluated citation bias, meaning if researchers referred to earlier studies in a nonscientific way, whereas 79 studies (48%) evaluated predictors of citation rate to identify ways to increase authors' own citation rates. The remaining seven studies (4%) wanted to find characteristics that could make the studies more accessible. What do the findings mean? The study identified a very large number of predictors of citation rate being evaluated and even indicating risk of citation bias. Furthermore, the study found that 48% of the papers recommended changing things like title length or number of authors to get more citations, instead of focusing on the actual scientific contribution. These recommendations might, however, be in conflict with scientific principles and honesty.