An analysis of 100 years' worth of papers published in the journal Science suggests that a long reference list at the end of a research paper may be the key to ensuring that it is well cited.
The research puts forward the idea that scientists who reference the work of their peers are more likely to find their own work referenced in turn. A single extra reference in an article now produces, on average, a whole additional citation for the referencing paper.
According to Gregory Webster, a psychologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville, who conducted the research, there is a strong relationship between the number of citations a paper receives and its number of references. Further, Webster says that he believes that his study is the first to investigate the phenomenon comprehensively. Webster also found the effect, though to a lesser extent, in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology and Evolution and Human Behavior, with the results for the latter published last year.
The latest study was presented at the International Society for the Psychology of Science & Technology conference in Berkeley, California, on August 7, 2010. Data was gathered from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database for all 53,894 articles and review articles published in the journal Science between 1901 and 2000.
The study also looked at how the relationship has changed over time. It found that it had strengthened more than threefold over the 100-year period studied.
Webster has announced plans to extend the analysis to include Nature papers, as well as interview scientists about their behaviour. However, he thinks that the psychology of working scientists may see them behave in an almost 'tit-for-tat' way that boosts their citation counts.
Search for more Case Studies/Industry study reports
