2017
Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract: Similar to what we already know on publication bias, also citation bias can lead to an overrepresentation of positive results and unfounded beliefs.
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
152
32
25
1
Citation Types
6
132
3
8
Year Published
2017
2026
Publication Types
Select...
156
17
12
8
Relationship
7
186
Authors
Journals
Cited by 191 publications
(149 citation statements)
References 64 publications
6
132
3
8
“…These include the publication year, keyword count, reference count and journal reputation before the publication of the studied RCTs (see Table 4). This is in agreement with previous literature confirming the positive impact of keyword count [12,15], publication year [29], reference count [18,20,22] and JIF [12,[16][17][18]23,25,27,28]. According to our results, the journal reputation was the strongest factor affecting the citation count.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…These include the publication year, keyword count, reference count and journal reputation before the publication of the studied RCTs (see Table 4). This is in agreement with previous literature confirming the positive impact of keyword count [12,15], publication year [29], reference count [18,20,22] and JIF [12,[16][17][18]23,25,27,28]. According to our results, the journal reputation was the strongest factor affecting the citation count.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Our study found that the most common study design in both years was the systematic review. This finding was consistent with a study that found biomedical sciences had an increased preference for this type of study design as compared to other fields and that systematic reviews and meta‐analyses had larger numbers of citations, which affected those journals’ Impact Factor 20 . In our study, the Impact Factor of the journals most often cited was also high.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Result significance was not a significant predictor for FPP, which contradicted previous studies in dentistry and medicine (Galang et al, 2011;Lee et al, 2012;Livas et al, 2014;Saldanha et al, 2016). Some methodological studies suggested that significant results were usually considered important and were more likely to be published in high-impact journals and attract more citations (Dickersin, 1990;Dickersin, Min, Meinert, 1992;Duyx, Urlings, Swaen, Bouter, Zeegers, 2017;Easterbrook, Berlin, Gopalan, Matthews, 1991). However, in this study, no association was found between FPP over time and the significance of results.…”
Section: Predictors Of Fpp and Discrepanciescontrasting
confidence: 99%
