Bibliometric Analysis of Manuscript Characteristics That Influence Citations: A Comparison of Six Major Radiology Journals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to investigate radiology manuscript characteristics that influence citation rate, capturing features of manuscript construction that are discrete from study design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive articles published from January 2004 to June 2004 were collected from the six major radiology journals with the highest impact factors: Radiology (impact factor, 5.076), Investigative Radiology (2.320), American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) (2.384), RadioGraphics (2.494), European Radiology (2.364), and American Journal of Roentgenology (2.406). The citation count for these articles was retrieved from the Web of Science, and 29 article characteristics were tabulated manually. A point-biserial correlation, Spearman rank-order correlation, and multiple regression model were performed to predict citation number from the collected variables. RESULTS: = 0.186): study findings in the title, abstract word count, abstract character count, total number of words, country of origin, and all authors in the field of radiology. CONCLUSION: Using bibliometric knowledge, authors can craft a title, abstract, and text that may enhance visibility and citation count over what they would otherwise experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchBibliometrics Domain: Reporting · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchBibliometrics Domain: Reporting · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.645 | 0.568 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it