Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we made a survey on the prediction capability of bibliometric indices and alternative metrics on the future success of articles by establishing a machine learning framework. Twenty-three bibliometric and alternative indices were collected to establish the feature space for the predication task. In order to eliminate the possible redundancy in feature space, three feature selection techniques of Relief-F, principal component analysis and entropy weighted method were used to rank the features according to their contribution to the original data set. Combining the fractal dimension of the data set, the intrinsic features which can better represent the original feature space were extracted. Three classifiers of Naïve Bayes, KNN and random forest were performed to detect the classification performance of these features. Experimental results show that both bibliometric indices and alternative metrics are beneficial to articles’ growth. Early citation features, early Web usage statistics, as well as the reputation of the first author are the most valuable indicators in making an article more influential in the future.

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

  • Abdi, H., Williams, L. J., & Valentin, D. (2013). Multiple factor analysis: Principal component analysis for multitable and multiblock data sets. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 5(2), 149–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (2005). Early citation counts correlation with accumulated impact. Scientometrics, 63(3), 567–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amara, N., Landry, R., & Halilem, N. (2015). What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members? Scientometrics, 103(2), 489–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annalingam, A., Damayanthi, H., Jayawardena, R., & Ranasinghe, P. (2014). Determinants of the citation rate of medical research publications from a developing country. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou, G. A., Antoniou, S. A., Georgakarakos, E. I., Sfyroeras, G. S., & Georgiadis, G. S. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of factors predicting increased citations in the vascular and endovascular literature. Annals of Vascular Surgery, 29(2), 286–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belussi, A., & Faloutsos, C. (1995). Estimating the selectivity of spatial queries using the ‘correlation’ fractal dimension. In Proceedings of the 21th international conference on very large data bases (pp. 299–310).

  • Berchtold, S., Böhm, C., & Kriegel, H.-P. (1998). The pyramid-tree: Breaking the curse of dimensionality. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 142–153).

  • Biscaro, C., & Giupponi, C. (2014). Co-authorship and bibliographic coupling network effects on citations. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnason, T., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2002). Nordic impact: Article productivity and citation patterns in sixteen Nordic Sociology departments. Acta Sociologica, 45(4), 253–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2013). The problem of citation impact assessments for recent publication years in institutional evaluations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 722–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). Citation speed as a measure to predict the attention an article receives: An investigation of the validity of editorial decisions at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. (2013). How to calculate the practical significance of citation impact differences? An empirical example from evaluative institutional bibliometrics using adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 562–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsuk, R. M., Budden, A. E., Leimu, R., Aarssen, L. W., & Lortie, C. J. (2009). The influence of author gender, national language and number of authors on citation rate in ecology. Open Ecology Journal, 2(1), 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosquet, C., & Combes, P. P. (2013). Are academics who publish more also more cited? Individual determinants of publication and citation records. Scientometrics, 97(3), 831–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., & Stone, C. (1984). Classification and regression trees. New York: Wadsworth.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Buela-Casal, G., & Zych, I. (2010). Analysis of the relationship between the number of citations and the quality evaluated by experts in psychology journals. Psicothema, 22(2), 270–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, T., Kumar, S., Goyal, p. Ganguly, N. & Mukherjee, A. (2014). Towards a stratified learning approach to predict future citation counts. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries.

  • Chen, C. M. (2012). Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, P. S., & Glänzel, W. (2017). An empirical investigation of the associations among usage, scientific collaboration and citation impact. Scientometrics, 112(1), 403–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, P. S., & Glänzel, W. (2018). Comparison of citation and usage indicators in research assessment in scientific disciplines and journals. Scientometrics, 116(1), 537–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collet, F., Robertson, D. A., & Lup, D. (2014). When does brokerage matter? Citation impact of research teams in an emerging academic field. Strategic Organization, 12(3), 157–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalen, Van, & Henkens, H. P. K. (2005). Signals in science-On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics, 64(2), 209–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Winter, J. (2015). The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1773–1779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., Bowman, T. D., & Holmberg, K. (2018). On the difference 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1055–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., Dorta-González, M. I., Santos-Peñate, D. R., & Suárez-Vega, R. (2014). Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 406–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudani, S. A. (1976). The distance-weighted k-nearest neighbor rule. IEEE Transactions on System Man and Cybernetics, 6(4), 325–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, N. A., Salehi, H., Embi, M. A., Tanha, F. H., Gholizadeh, H., & Motahar, S. M. (2014). Visibility and citation impact. International Education Studies, 7(4), 120–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falagas, M. E., Zarkali, A., Karageorgopoulos, D. E., Bardakas, V., & Mavros, M. N. (2013). The impact of article length on the number of future citations: A bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e49476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farshad, M., Sidler, C., & Gerber, C. (2013). Association of scientific and nonscientific factors to citation rates of articles of renowned orthopedic journals. European Orthopedics and Traumatology, 4(3), 125–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto, S., Machado, F. A., Bento, L. F. J., Iamarino, A., Nahas, T. R., & Munger, D. S. (2012). Research blogging: indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PLoS One, 7(12), e50109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2013). The ripple effect: Citation chain reactions of a nobel prize. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 437–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, J., Porter, A. L., & Newman, N. C. (2014). Distance and velocity measures: Using citations to determine breadth and speed of research impact. Scientometrics, 100(3), 687–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2008). Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. In 4th International conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & 9th COLLNET meeting, Berlin, Germany.

  • Glänzel, W., & Heeffer, S. (2014). Cross-national preferences and similarities in downloads and citations of scientific articles: a pilot study. In E. Noyons (Ed.), Proceedings of the STI conference 2014, Leiden (pp. 207–215).

  • Glänzel, W., Rousseau, R., & Zhang, L. (2012). A visual representation of relative first-citation times. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1420–1425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics, 61(3), 395–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2014). The application of citation-based performance classes to the disciplinary and multidisciplinary assessment in national comparision and institutional research assessment. Scientometrics, 101(2), 939–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Alcaide, G., Calafat, A., Becona, E., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2016). Co-citation analysis of articles published in substance abuse journals: Intellectual structure and research fields (2001-2012). Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 77(5), 710–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2014). Relationship between downloads and citations at journal and paper levels, and the influence of language. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1043–1065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2010). Predicting long-term citation impact of articles in social and personality psychology. Psychological Reports, 106(3), 891–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT-Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Hadas, S., & Terliesner, J. (2013). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. In Proceeding of 14th international society of scientometrics and informatics conference (pp. 468–483).

  • Herrmannova, D., Patton, R. M., Knoth, P., & Stahl, C. G. (2018). Do citations and readership identify seminal publications? Scientometrics, 115(1), 239–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilmer, C. E., & Lusk, J. L. (2009a). Determinants of citations to the agricultural and applied economics association journals. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(4), 677–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilmer, C. E., & Lusk, J. L. (2009b). Determinants of citations to the agricultural and applied economics association journals. Reviews of Agricultural Economics, 31(4), 677–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H., Andrews, J., & Tang, J. (2012). Citation characterization and impact normalization in bioinformatics journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 490–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S., Chang, J., Leng, G., & Huang, Q. (2015). Integrated index for drought assessment based on variable fuzzy set theory: A case study in the Yellow River basin. Journal of Hydrology, 527, 608–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, L. A., Ogier, A. L., & Torvik, V. I. (2013). Deconstructing the collaborative impact: Article and author characteristics that influence citation count. Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting, 50(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, A., Bielza, C., & Larrañaga, P. (2013). Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: A case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000-2009. Scientometrics, 95(2), 689–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingwersen, P., & Larsen, B. (2014). Influence of a performance indicator on Danish research production and citation impact 2000-12. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1325–1344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Garcia-Zorita, J. C., Serrano-Lopez, A. E., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2014). Influence of proceedings papers on citation impact in seven sub-fields of sustainable energy research 2005-2011. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1273–1292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, S. W., Lin, W. C., Tsai, C. F., & Hu, Y. H. (2014). Citation impact analysis of research papers that appear in oral and poster sessions: A case study of three computer science conference. Online Information Review, 38(6), 738–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kononenko, I. (1994). Estimating attributes: Analysis and extensions of RELIEF. In European conference on machine learning (pp. 171–182).

  • Korn, F., Pagel, B.-U., & Faloutsos, C. (2001). On the ‘dimensionality curse’ and the ‘self-similarity blessing’. IEEE TKDE, 13, 96–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2017). Are Wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 762–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, P., Iba, W., & Thompson, K. (1992). An analysis of Bayesian classifers. In Proceedings of the 10th national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 223–228).

  • Lee, S. Y., Lee, S., & Jun, S. H. (2010). Author and article characteristics, journal quality and citation in economic research. Applied Economics Letters, 17(17), 1697–1701.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lira, R. P. C., Vieira, R. M. C., Goncalves, F. A., Ferreira, M. C. A., Maziero, D., & Arieta, C. E. L. (2013). Influence of English language in the number of citations of articles published in Brazilian journals of Ophthalmology. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, 76(1), 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marashi, S. A., Hosseini-Nami, S., Alishah, K., Hadi, M., Karimi, A., Hosseinian, S., et al. (2013). Impact of wikipeida on citation trends. Excli Journal, 12, 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. M. (2015). Does online availability increase citations? Theory and evidence from a panel of economics and business journals. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(1), 144–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miettunen, J., & Nieminen, P. (2003). The effect of statistical methods and study reporting characteristics on the number of citations: A study of four general psychiatric journals. Scientometrics, 57(3), 377–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naraei, P. & Sadeghian, A. (2017). A PCA based feature reduction in intracranial hypertension analysis. In IEEE international conference on 30th Canadian conference on electrical and computer engineering (pp. 1–6).

  • Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology, 7(11), e1000242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomaler, T., Frenken, K., & Heimeriks, G. (2013). Do more distant collaborations have more citation impact? Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 966–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onodera, N., & Yoshikane, F. (2015). Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 739–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onyancha, O. B., & Maluleka, J. R. (2011). Knowledge production through collaborative research in sub-Saharan Africa: How much do countries contribute to each other’s knowledge output and citation impact? Scientometrics, 87(2), 315–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. (2016). To be or not to be on Twitter, and its relationship with the tweeting and citation of research papers. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1353–1364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padial, A. A., Nabout, J. C., Siqueira, T., Bini, L. M., & Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. (2010). Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles. Scientometrics, 85(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagel, P. S., & Hudetz, J. A. (2011). Scholarly productivity of United States academic cardiothoracic anesthesiologists: Influence of fellowship accreditation and transesophageal echocardiographic credentials on h-index and other citation bibliometrics. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 25(5), 761–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagel, B.-U., Korn, F. & Faloutsos, C. (2000). Deflating the dimensionality curse using multiple fractal dimensions. In 16th ICDE (pp. 589–598).

  • Patterson, M. S., & Harris, S. (2009). The relationship between reviewers’ quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal physics in medicine and biology from 2003-2005. Scientometrics, 80(2), 343–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peoples, B., Midway, S., Sackett, D., Lynch, A., & Cooney, P. B. (2016). Twitter predicts citation rates of ecological research. PLoS ONE, 11, e0166570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). The power of altmetrics on a CV. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). Retrieved from https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570.

  • Priem, J., Parra, C., Piwowar, H., Groth, P., & Waagmeester, A. (2012). Uncovering impacts: a case study in using altmetrics tools. In Second international conference on the future of scholarly communication and scientific publishing. Heraklion, Greece. http://jasonpriem.org/self-archived/altmetrics/sepublica/cameraready.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2013.

  • Puuska, H. M., Muhonen, R., & Leino, Y. (2014). International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines. Scientometrics, 98(2), 823–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, J., Liakata, M., Clare, A., & Duma, D. (2017). Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: an assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS ONE, 12, e0173152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, T., Ayling-Rouse, K., & Smith, S. (2012). Accesses versus citations: Why you need to measure both to assess publication impact. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 28, S9–S10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringelhan, S., Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. (2015). I like, I cite? Do facebook likes predict the impact of scientific work? PLoS ONE, 10, e0134389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle, P., Kandala, N. B., Barnard, K., & Waugh, N. (2013). Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: Analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Systematic reviews, 2, 74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangwal, K. (2012). On the relationship between citations of publication output and Hirsch index h of authors: Conceptualization of tapered Hirsch index h T, circular citation area radius R and citation acceleration a. Scientometrics, 93(3), 987–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., & Green, E. (2011). Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences. Research Policy, 40(10), 1321–1331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shu, F., Lou, W., & Haustein, S. (2018). Can Twitter increase the visibility of Chinese publications? Scientometrics, 116(1), 505–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sin, S. C. J. (2011). International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980-2008. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1770–1783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stremersch, S., Camacho, N., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2015). Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1), 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 171–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syamili, C., & Rekha, R. V. (2017). Do altmetric correlate with citation? A study based on PLOS ONE journal. Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 11(1), 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, X., Wang, L., & Kishore, R. (2014). Why do is scholars cite other scholars? An empirical analysis of the direct and moderating effects of cooperation and competition among is scholars on individual citation behavior C3. In 35th International conference on information systems (ICIS 2014).

  • Taylor, M. (2013). Exploring the boundaries: how altmetrics can expand our vision of scholarly communication and social impact. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2018). Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1231–1240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other candidates. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traina, C., Traina, A., Wu, L., & Faloutsos, C. (2000). Fast feature selection using fractal dimension. In Proceeding 15th Brazilian symposium on database (SBBD) (pp. 158–171).

  • Van Der Pol, C. B., McInnes, M. D. F., Petrcich, W., Tunis, A. S., & Hanna, R. (2015). Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates? PLoS ONE, 10(3), e011892.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., van Raan, A. F. J., Klautz, R. J. M., & Peul, W. C. (2013). Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e62395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wesel, M., Wyatt, S., & ten Haaf, J. (2014). What a difference a colon makes: How superficial factors influence subsequent citation. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1601–1615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. K. (2013). Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 265–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2010). Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (2006). Predicting subsequent citations to article published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Author impact versus journal impact. Scientometrics, 69(3), 499–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Costas, R. (2014). F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 433–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Liu, C., Fang, Z., & Mao, W. (2014). From attention to citation, what and how does altmetrics work? http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.4269

  • Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015a). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015b). Characteristics of international collaboration in sport sciences publications and its influence on citation impact. Scientometrics, 105(2), 843–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Yu, G., An, S., & Yu, D. (2012a). Discovery of factors influencing citation impact based on a soft fuzzy rough set model. Scientometrics, 93(3), 635–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Yu, G., Xu, J., He, H., Yu, D., & An, S. (2012b). Development a case-based classifier for predicting highly cited papers. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 586–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, D. L., Bahler, C. D., Neuberger, M. M., & Dahm, P. (2011). Predictors of citations in the urological literature. BJU International, 107(12), 1876–1880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J. L., Xu, B. W., Zhang, W. F., & Cui, Z. F. (2008). Principal component analysis based feature selection for clustering. In 2008 international conference on machine learning and cybernetics (Vol. 1, pp. 460–465).

  • Yu, T., & Yu, G. (2014). Features of scientific papers and the relationships with their citation impact. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 19(1), 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, T., Yu, G., Li, P. Y., & Wang, L. (2014). Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1233–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, S. B., & Hua, W. N. (2011). Scholarly impact measurements of LIS open access journals: Based on citations and links. Electronic Library, 29(5), 682–697.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yue, W. P., & Wilson, C. S. (2004). Measuring the citation impact of research journals in clinical neurology: A structural equation modelling analysis. Scientometrics, 60(3), 317–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, Z., Costas, R. & Wouters, P. (2013). How well developed are Altmerics? Cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. In 14th International society of scientometrics and informatics conference (pp. 876–884).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71473034), the financial assistance from Postdoctoral Scientific Research Developmental Fund of Heilongjiang Province (Grant No. LBH-Q16003), and the national undergraduate training programs for innovation (Grant No. 201510225167).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information and Computer Engineering, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, People’s Republic of China

    Mingyang Wang, Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen

Authors
  1. Mingyang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhenyu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guangsheng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guangsheng Chen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, M., Wang, Z. & Chen, G. Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics. Scientometrics 119, 1575–1595 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03052-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03052-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation