Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 169–185 | Cite as

What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology

  • Nick HaslamEmail author
  • Lauren Ban
  • Leah Kaufmann
  • Stephen Loughnan
  • Kim Peters
  • Jennifer Whelan
  • Sam Wilson
Article

Abstract

Factors contributing to citation impact in social-personality psychology were examined in a bibliometric study of articles published in the field’s three major journals. Impact was operationalized as citations accrued over 10 years by 308 articles published in 1996, and predictors were assessed using multiple databases and trained coders. Predictors included author characteristics (i.e., number, gender, nationality, eminence), institutional factors (i.e., university prestige, journal prestige, grant support), features of article organization (i.e., title characteristics, number of studies, figures and tables, number and recency of references), and research approach (i.e., topic area, methodology). Multivariate analyses demonstrated several strong predictors of impact, including first author eminence, having a more senior later author, journal prestige, article length, and number and recency of references. Many other variables — e.g., author gender and nationality, collaboration, university prestige, grant support, title catchiness, number of studies, experimental vs. correlational methodology, topic area — did not predict impact.

Keywords

Citation Count Citation Impact Grant Support Influential Article Personality Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adair, J. G., Vohra, N. (2003), The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58: 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldi, S. (1998), Normative versus social constructivist process in the allocation of citations: A network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63: 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991), The reliability of peer-review for manuscripts and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14: 119–134.Google Scholar
  4. Cleveland, W. S. (1984), Graphs in scientific publications. American Statistician, 38: 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, S. (1983), The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89: 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronin, B., Overfelt, K. (1994), Citation-based auditing of academic performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45: 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronin, B., Shaw, D. (1999), Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55: 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillon, J. T. (1981), The emergence of the colon: An empirical correlate of scholarship. American Psychologist, 36: 879–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglas, R. J. (1992), How to write a highly cited article without even trying. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferber, M. A. (1986), Citations: Are they an objective measure of scholarly merit? Signs, 11: 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (1987), Mapping the world of science: Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? In: D. N. Jackson, J. P. Rushton (Eds), Scientific Excellence: Origins and Assessment. Sage Publications, pp. 98–128.Google Scholar
  12. Gottfredson, S. D. (1978), Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist, 33: 920–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenwald, A. S., Shuh, E. S. (1994), An ethnic bias in scientific citations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24: 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harter, S. P., Hooten, P. A. (1992), Information-science and scientists — JASIS, 1972–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43: 583–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., Matthews, K. A. (1980), Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 896–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hudson, J. (2007), Be known by the company you keep: Citations — quality or chance? Scientometrics, 71: 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lange, L. (1985), Effects of disciplines and countries on citation habits: An analysis of empirical papers in behavioral sciences. Scientometrics, 8: 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, J. D., Vicente, K. J., Cassano, A., Shearer, A. (2003), Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton’s model of creative productivity. Scientometrics, 56: 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewison, G., Hartley, J. (2005), What’s in a title? Numbers of words and the presence of colons. Scientometrics, 63: 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindsey, D. (1988), Assessing precision in the manuscript review process: A little better than a dice roll. Scientometrics, 14: 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGarty, C. (2000), The citation impact factor in social psychology: A bad statistic that encourages bad science? Current Research in Social Psychology, 5: 1–16.Google Scholar
  22. Merton, R. K. (1968). The “Matthew effect’ in science. Science, 159: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Research Council (1995), Ranking of U.S.A. PhD programs in psychology. Retrieved from http://www.socialpsychology.org/ranking.htm
  24. Over, R. (1990), The scholarly impact of articles published by men and women in psychological journals. Scientometrics, 18: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patsopoulos, N. A., Analatos, A. A., Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005), Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 293: 2362–2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peters, D. P., Ceci, S. J. (1982), Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5: 187–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., Fabrigar, L. R. (1999), The review process at PSPB: Correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 188–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quinones-Vidal, E., Lopez-Garcia, J. J., Penaranda-Ortega, M., Tortose-Gil, F. (2004). The nature of social and personality psychology as reflected in JPSP, 1965–2000. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shadish, W. R. Jr. (1989), The perception and evaluation of quality in science. In: B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, Jr, R. A. Neimeyer, A. C. Houts (Eds), The Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience. Cambridge University Press, pp. 383–436.Google Scholar
  30. Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2005), Academic ranking of world universities. Retrieved from http://www.ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Main.htm
  31. Simonton, D. K. (2006), Scientific status of disciplines, individuals, and ideas: Empirical analyses of the potential impact of theory. Review of General Psychology, 10: 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smart, J. C., Bayer, A. E. (1986), Author collaboration and impact: A note on citation rates of single and multiple authored articles. Scientometrics, 10: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sternberg, R. J., Gordeeva, T. (1996), The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential? Psychological Science, 7: 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stewart, J. A. (1983), Achievement and ascriptive processes in the recognition of scientific articles. Social Forces, 62: 166–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Haslam
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lauren Ban
    • 1
  • Leah Kaufmann
    • 1
  • Stephen Loughnan
    • 1
  • Kim Peters
    • 1
  • Jennifer Whelan
    • 1
  • Sam Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations