• shareshare
  • link
  • cite
  • add
auto_awesome_motion View all 6 versions
Publication . Article . Conference object . Other literature type . Preprint . 2022

Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations

Vincent A. Traag;
Open Access   English  
Articles in high-impact journals are, on average, more frequently cited. But are they cited more often because those articles are somehow more “citable”? Or are they cited more often simply because they are published in a high-impact journal? Although some evidence suggests the latter the causal relationship is not clear. We here compare citations of preprints to citations of the published version to uncover the causal mechanism. We build on an earlier model of citation dynamics to infer the causal effect of journals on citations. We find that high-impact journals select articles that tend to attract more citations. At the same time, we find that high-impact journals augment the citation rate of published articles. Our results yield a deeper understanding of the role of journals in the research system. The use of journal metrics in research evaluation has been increasingly criticized in recent years and article-level citations are sometimes suggested as an alternative. Our results show that removing impact factors from evaluation does not negate the influence of journals. This insight has important implications for changing practices of research evaluation.
Presented at Complexity Science Hub Vienna, 5 February 2021
Subjects by Vocabulary

Microsoft Academic Graph classification: Research evaluation Positive economics Research system Psychology Citation rate Citation Causal effect


Causal inference, Journal, Citations, Bayesian hierarchical model, Computer Science - Digital Libraries, Physics - Physics and Society, General Medicine

Related Organizations
44 references, page 1 of 5

1V. Larivie`re and Y. Gingras, “The impact factor's Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61, 424-427 (2010).

2T. V. Perneger, “Citation analysis of identical consensus statements revealed journal-related bias,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63, 660-664 (2010). [OpenAIRE]

3S. Cantrill, “Imperfect impact,” (2016).

4D. Wang, C. Song, and A.-L. Baraba´si, “Quantifying LongTerm Scientific Impact,” Science 342, 127-132 (2013).

5S. Curry, “Let's move beyond the rhetoric: It's time to change how we judge research,” Nature 554, 147 (2018).

6V. Larivie`re and C. R. Sugimoto, “The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects,” in Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, edited by W. G. F. M. S. Thelwall (2019) pp. 3-24, arXiv:1801.08992.

7E. C. McKiernan, L. A. Schimanski, C. Mun˜oz Nieves, L. Matthias, M. T. Niles, and J. P. Alperin, “Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations,” eLife 8 (2019), 10.7554/eLife.47338.

8A. Rushforth and S. de Rijcke, “Accounting for Impact? The Journal Impact Factor and the Making of Biomedical Research in the Netherlands,” Minerva 53, 117-139 (2015).

9R. Mu¨ller and S. De Rijcke, “Thinking with indicators. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences,” Research Evaluation 26, 157- 168 (2017).

10A. Casadevall and F. C. Fang, “Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania.” mBio 5, e00064-14 (2014).