Bibliometric Analysis of Manuscript Characteristics that Influence Citations: A Comparison of Six Major Family Medicine Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective The premise of our study was to investigate the characteristics of family medicine (FM) manuscripts that influence citation rate, capturing features of manuscript construction that are discrete from the study design. Design We conducted a cross-sectional study of published articles (n = 199), from January to June 2008, from 6 major FM journals with the highest impact factor. Annals of Family Medicine (IF = 1.864), British Journal of General Practice (1.104), Journal of American Board of Family Medicine (1.015), Family Practice (0.976), Family Medicine (0.936), and BMC Family Practice (0.815). Citation counts for these articles were retrieved using Web of Science filter on SCImago and 25 article characteristics were tabulated manually. We then predicted the citation rate by performing univariate analysis, spearman rank-order correlation, and multiple regression model on the collected variables. Results Using spearman rank-order correlation, we found the following variables to have significant positive correlation with citations: number of references (r s and p -value, 0.31 and 0.001 respectively), total words (0.36, 0.001), number of pages (0.33, 0.001), abstract word count (0.17, 0.010) and abstract character count (0.16, 0.010). In a multivariate linear regression model: number of references ( p -value = 0.010 , R 2 = 0.06) and multi-institutional ( p -value = 0.050 , R 2 = 0.01) had a significant effect on citation rates. Conclusion Editors and authors of FM can enhance the impact of their journals and articles by utilizing this bibliometric study when assembling their manuscript.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.054 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".