Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A quantitative analysis of determinants of non-citation using a panel data model

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The term “non-citation factor” refers to the percentage of never-cited papers in a citation time window, a common phenomenon in the science world. Some scholars have qualitatively explored the reasons for not citing a publication, and quantitatively analyzed the mathematical functional relations between the “non-citation factor” and “impact factor of a journal.” This study simultaneously considers the mutual relations and closeness degree between the “non-citation factor” and different influencing factors from a novel perspective—that of using a more structuralized panel data model. The analysis revealed that the determinants, including “impact factor of journal,” “age of journal,” “average number of references per paper in journal,” and “issues of journal,” exerted an extremely small but positive influence (< 0.025) on the decline of “percentage of never-cited papers in the citation time window of publication year or 3 years.” That means the improvement of these determinants can decrease the percentage of never-cited papers. The “impact factor of the journal” always had the biggest positive influence, while the “average number of references per paper in journal” always had the smallest positive influence. In wider citation time windows of 3 or 6 years, two determinants—“number of publications in journal” and “amount of interdisciplinarity in journal”—began to exert a negative effect with a positive correlation coefficient on the decline of the “non-citation factor.” That means the improvement of these two determinants cannot decrease the value of the “non-citation factor,” even though they can increase its value. It is worth noting that the “impact factor of the journal” had a positive influence on the decline of the percentages of never-cited papers in the citation time window of publication year or 3 years, and began to play a negative role in the decline of percentage of never-cited papers in the citation time window of 6 years. Finally, three variables—“average number of authors per paper in journal,” “average number of references per paper in journal,” and “issues of journal”—no longer exerted an influence on the decline of percentages of never-cited papers in the citation time window of 6 years, while “age of journal” and “average number of pages per paper in journal” still made a positive contribution. Our findings could help research institutions, researchers, editors, and publishers understand the positively or negatively influential factors that lead to non-citation, thus improving the chance of papers being cited and having some academic influence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anselin, L., Le Gallo, J., & Jayet, H. (2008). Spatial panel econometrics. In L. Mátyás & P. Sevestre (Eds.), The econometrics of panel data (pp. 625–660). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B. H., & Maasoumi, E. (2013). An overview of dependence in cross-section, time-series, and panel data. Econometric Reviews, 32(5–6), 543–546.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Q. L. (2002). Will this paper ever be cited? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(3), 232–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Q. L. (2013). A stochastic approach to the relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 676–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2008). The mathematical relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor. Scientometrics, 76(1), 118–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2010). The distribution of the uncitedness factor and its functional relation with the impact factor. Scientometrics, 83(3), 689–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2013). The functional relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., Guns, R., & Rousseau, R. (2011). Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and fields medalists as case studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1637–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frondel, M., & Vance, C. (2010). Fixed, random, or something in between? A variant of Hausman’s specification test for panel data estimators. Economics Letters, 107(3), 327–329.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1972). Uncitedness and identification of dissertation topics. Current Contents, (4),12.

  • Garfield, E. (1973). UncitednessIII—Importance of not being cited. Current Contents, 16(8), 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1991). To be an uncited scientist is no cause for shame. The Scientist, 5(6), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1998). I had a dream… about uncitedness. The Scientist, 12(14), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, J. S. (1975). Uncitedness of articles in nature, a multidisciplinary scientific journal. Information Processing and Management, 11(5–7), 165–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, J. S., & Neufeld, M. L. (1974). Uncitedness of articles in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10(11–12), 365–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? a critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. P. (1990). Publishing by—and for?—The numbers. Science, 250, 1331–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. P. (1991). Research papers: Who’s uncited now? Science, 251, 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, J. W., & Huang, D. W. (2012). A scaling between impact factor and uncitedness. Physica A—Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 391(5), 2129–2134.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Z. W., & Wu, Y. S. (2014). Regularity in the time-dependent distribution of the percentage of never-cited papers: An empirical pilot study based on the six journals. Journal of Informetrics, 8(01), 136–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Z. W., & Wu, Y. S. (2017). A probe into causes of non-citation based on survey data. Social Science Information, 57(01), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., & Abdoli, M. (2013). The citation impact of open access agricultural research. Online Information Review, 34(5), 772–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewison, G., & Dawson, G. (1998). The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Ye, F. Y. (2014). A probe into the citation patterns of high-quality and high-impact publications. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 19(2), 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L. M., Zhong, Z., & Rousseau, R. (2015). Uncited papers, uncited authors and uncited topics: A case study in library and information science. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2010). Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, L. P., & Lin, L. Y. (1995). Content and citation analyses of public relations review. Public Relations Review, 21(4), 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendlebury, D. A. (1991). Science, citation, and funding. Science, 251, 1410–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. F., & Raan, A. F. J. V. (1994). On determinants of citation scores: A case study in chemical engineering. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 145, 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racki, G. (2009). Rank-normalized journal impact factor as a predictive tool. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 57(1), 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (1992). Why am I not cited, or why are multi-authored papers more cited than others. Journal of Documentation., 48(1), 79–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarafidis, V., & Wansbeek, T. (2012). Cross-sectional dependence in panel data analysis. Econometric Reviews, 31(5), 483–531.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, I. N., & Henzler, R. G. (1991). Citedness and uncitedness of cancer articles. Scientometrics, 22(2), 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, R. E. (1990). Uncitedness in the biomedical literature. Journal of the American society for information science, 41, 193–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, A. O. (1993). An introduction to regression analysis. American Statistician, 61(2), 101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2016). Are there too many uncited articles? Zero inflated variants of the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 622–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, S. R., & Clarke, D. L. (1997). Uncited prince. South African Journal of Surgery, 35(4), 229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Moed, H. F. (2005). Characteristics of journal impact factors: The effects of uncitedness and citation distribution on the understanding of journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 63(2), 357–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. (2015). Review of multiple regression. Retrieved from http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats2/l02.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017.

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2016). A comparative study of the citation impact of Chinese journals with government priority support. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, Retrieved from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frma.2016.00003/full. Accessed 18 July 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71373252 and 71603128), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China (Grant No. BK20160974), the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (Grant No. 15YJC870011), Top-notch Academic Programs Project of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yishan Wu

    Present address: Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development, No.8 Yuyuantan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038, China

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210044, Jiangsu, China

    Zewen Hu

  2. School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, Jiangsu, China

    Jianjun Sun

Authors
  1. Zewen Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yishan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianjun Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yishan Wu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, Z., Wu, Y. & Sun, J. A quantitative analysis of determinants of non-citation using a panel data model. Scientometrics 116, 843–861 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2791-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2791-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation