Maximized Research Impact: An Effective Strategies for Increasing Citations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high competitive environment has forced higher education authorities to set their strategies to improve university ranking. Citations of published papers are among the most widely used inputs to measure national and global university ranking (which accounts for 20% of QS, 30% of THE, and etc.). Therefore, from one hand, improving the citation impact of a search is one of the university manager’s strategies. On the other hand, the researchers are also looking for some helpful techniques to increase their citation record. This chapter by reviewing the relevant articles covers 48 different strategies for maximizing research impact and visibility. The results show that some features of article can help predict the number of article views and citation counts. The findings presented in this chapter could be used by university authorities, authors, reviewers, and editors to maximize the impact of articles in the scientific community.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".