Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 119, Issue 3, pp 1715–1727 | Cite as

The impact of video abstract on citation counts: evidence from a retrospective cohort study of New Journal of Physics

  • Qianjin ZongEmail author
  • Yafen Xie
  • Rongchan Tuo
  • Jingshi Huang
  • Yang Yang
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we addressed the question of whether a video abstract of an article affects its citation counts. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the research articles published in New Journal of Physics during 2010 and 2016. Articles with video abstract (N = 315) as the experimental group, were matched 1:2, with articles without video abstract (N = 630) as the control group, by the same publishing issue, same article type. Specifically, the articles lacking video abstract that appeared immediately before and after each experimental group article were included in the control group. A negative binomial regression model was employed to analyze the data. After controlling for the characteristics of articles (including the number of authors, international co-authorship, character counts of title, character counts of text-based abstract, keyword counts, reference counts, page counts and funding), our results showed that articles with video abstract (experimental group) compared to the articles without video abstract (control group) were expected to have a rate 1.206 times greater for citation counts. This study suggests that a video abstract can potentially serve as a useful genre of a research article for receiving more citation counts.

Keywords

Video abstract Citation counts Citation analysis Altmetrics Retrospective cohort study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71704057) and Guangdong Planning office of Philosophy and Social Science of China (Grant No. GD17YTS01).

References

  1. Basile, J., Egan, B., Punzi, H., Ali, S., Li, Q., Patel, M., et al. (2018). Risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular events with beta-blockers in hypertensive patients: A retrospective cohort study. Cardiology and therapy.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40119-018-0117-y.Google Scholar
  2. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014). The wisdom of citing scientists. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1288–1292.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton, A., Koers, H., Manghi, P., La Bruzzo, S., Aryani, A., Diepenbroek, M., et al. (2017). The data-literature interlinking service towards a common infrastructure for sharing data-article links. Program-Electronic Library and Information Systems, 51(1), 75–100.  https://doi.org/10.1108/prog-06-2016-0048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CellPress. (2018). Video abstract guidelines. https://www.cell.com/video-abstract-guidelines. Accessed 4 Sept 2018.
  5. Cheng, Y. T., Li, J. C. H., & Liu, X. Y. (2018). Limited usefulness of capture procedure and capture percentage for evaluating reproducibility in psychological science. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01657.Google Scholar
  6. Clavería, L. E., Guallar, E., Camí, J., Conde, J., Pastor, R., Ricoy, J. R., et al. (2000). Does peer review predict the performance of research projects in health sciences? Scientometrics, 47(1), 11–23.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005609624130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramond, F., Irvine, C., Liao, J., Howells, D., Sena, E., Currie, G., et al. (2016). Protocol for a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution. Scientometrics, 108(1), 315–328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1964-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Didegah, F., Bowman, T. D., & Holmberg, K. (2018). On the differences between citations and Altmetrics: An investigation of factors driving Altmetrics versus citations for finnish articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(6), 832–843.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861–873.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Article properties associating with the citation impact of individual articles in the social sciences. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands. 3–5 Sept 2014.Google Scholar
  11. Ebrahimy, S., Mehrad, J., Setareh, F., & Hosseinchari, M. (2016). Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: The mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1497–1510.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2130-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elsevier. (2018a). Elsevier scopus APIs. https://dev.elsevier.com/sc_apis.html. Accessed 23 Aug 2018.
  13. Elsevier. (2018b). The largest database of peer-reviewed literature-Scopus-Elsevier Solutions. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus. Accessed 23 Aug 2018.
  14. Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. C., & Theng, Y. L. (2016). Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1117–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2077-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenniak, M., & Phaseit-Inc. (2016). PyPDF2·PyPI. https://pypi.org/project/PyPDF2/. Accessed 23 Aug 2018.
  16. Gnewuch, M., & Wohlrabe, K. (2017). Title characteristics and citations in economics. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1573–1578.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2216-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg, S. A. (2011). Understanding belief using citation networks. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 389–393.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01646.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gulley, N. (2014). Metrics and evaluation in publishing. In W. Blockmans, L. Engwall, & D. Weaire (Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance (pp. 77–83). London: Portland Press.Google Scholar
  19. Guo, F., Ma, C., Shi, Q. L., & Zong, Q. Q. (2018). Succinct effect or informative effect: The relationship between title length and the number of citations. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1531–1539.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2805-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hafeez, D. M., Jalal, S., & Khosa, F. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of manuscript characteristics that influence citations: A comparison of six major psychiatry journals. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 108, 90–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanssen, T. E. S., & Jorgensen, F. (2015). The value of experience in research. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 16–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartley, J. (2016). What’s new in abstracts of science articles? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(3), 235–236.  https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hudson, J. (2016). An analysis of the titles of papers submitted to the UK REF in 2014: Authors, disciplines, and stylistic details. Scientometrics, 109(2), 871–889.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2081-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IOP-Publishing. (2017). Video abstracts in journal articles. https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/video-abstracts/. Accessed 23 March 2019.
  25. Isogai, T., Matsui, H., Tanaka, H., Yokogawa, N., Fushimi, K., & Yasunaga, H. (2017). Treatments and in-hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide retrospective cohort study in Japan. Clinical Rheumatology, 36(5), 995–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3555-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakhar, D., & Kaur, I. (2018). Video abstracts in dermoscopy: Moving beyond text. Research in Clinical Dermatology, 1(2), 20.Google Scholar
  27. Jamali, H. R., Nabavi, M., & Asadi, S. (2018). How video articles are cited, the case of JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1821–1839.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2957-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jamali, H. R., & Nikzad, M. (2011). Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics, 88, 653–661.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0412-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, B., Kim, Y., & Kang, J. (2018). Analysis of the citation impact of national journals toward SCIE journals on JCR ranking. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 23(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Abdoli, M. (2012). The role of online videos in research communication: A content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1710–1727.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ladher, N., & Jarvies, D. (2013). Video abstracts: The latest in a series of initiatives to increase the accessibility and visibility of BMJ research. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 347, 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lê, S., Rees, T., Dennis, N., Petit, S., Jones, A., & Smith, S. (2015). Video abstracts: Publication professional’s and academic author’s perspectives. In Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the international society for medical publication professionals (ISMPP), Arlington, VA, USA, 27–29 April.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, C. L., Xu, Y. Q., Wu, H., Chen, S. S., & Guo, J. J. (2013). Correlation and interaction visualization of altmetric indicators extracted from scholarly social network activities: dimensions and structure. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(11), e259.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lokker, C., Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., & Wilczynski, N. L. (2011). Determining the impact factors of secondary journals: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(4), 637–642.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McBee, M. T., Makel, M. C., Peters, S. J., & Matthews, M. S. (2018). A call for open science in giftedness research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(4), 374–388.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218784178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGrath, J. M., & Brandon, D. (2016). Video abstracts: A fun, easy way to capture your audience—Try it! Advances in Neonatal Care, 16(1), 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mela, C. F., & Kopalle, P. K. (2002). The impact of collinearity on regression analysis: The asymmetric effect of negative and positive correlations. Applied Economics, 34(6), 667–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ortega, J. L. (2018). The life cycle of altmetric impact: A longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 579–589.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pan, X., Yan, E., & Hua, W. (2016). Science communication and dissemination in different cultures: An analysis of the audience for TED videos in China and abroad. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1473–1486.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Payne, P., Lele, O., Johnson, B., & Holve, E. (2017). Enabling open science for health research: Collaborative informatics environment for learning on health outcomes (CIELO). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(7), 5.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rees, T., Lê, S., Prevost, L., & Smith, S. (2015). Video abstracts: Do the metrics stack up? In Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the international society for medical publication professionals (ISMPP), Arlington, VA, USA, April 27–29.Google Scholar
  43. Ruriani, R., Lê, S., & Vegman, L. (2017). Let’s take it from the top: A view into video abstracts. http://ismpp-newsletter.com/2017/01/25/lets-take-it-from-the-top-a-view-into-video-abstracts/. Accessed 26 Sep 2018.
  44. Schlarb, A. A., Friedrich, A., & Claßen, M. (2018). We are pleased to announce the winner for the Dove Medical Press Video Abstract Award 2017. https://www.dovepress.com/author_guidelines.php?content_id=3195. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
  45. Shu, F., Lou, W., & Haustein, S. (2018). Can Twitter increase the visibility of Chinese publications? Scientometrics, 116(1), 505–519.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2732-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spicer, S. (2014). Exploring video abstracts in science journals: An overview and case study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(2), eP1110.  https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sugimoto, C. R., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 663–674.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P., & Macaluso, B. (2013). Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e62403.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thelwall, M. (2018). Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1231–1240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Weller, K., & Puschmann, C. (2012). Assessing the impact of online academic videos. In K. H. Gunilla Widén (Ed.), Social information research (Vol. 5, pp. 195–213). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2016). Mendeley readership Altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962–1972.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tu, J. (2019). What connections lead to good scientific performance? Scientometrics, 118(2), 587–604.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-02997-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WileyPress. (2018). Video abstracts and video bytes FAQ. https://authorservices.wiley.com/asset/photos/promote.html/VA%20FAQ%20Postcard.pdf. Accessed 4 Sept 2018.
  55. Xu, S., Yu, H., Hemminger, B. M., & Dong, X. (2018). Who, what, why? An exploration of JoVE scientific video publications in tweets. Scientometrics, 117(2), 845–856.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2880-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementSouth China Normal UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangdong Provincial Work Injury Rehabilitation HospitalGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA
  4. 4.China Electronic Product Reliability and Environmental Testing Research InstituteGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations