Hanel Paul H P, Haase Jennifer
School of Psychology, Cardiff UniversityCardiff, United Kingdom.
Department of Psychology, University of BathClaverton Down, United Kingdom.
Front Psychol. 2017 Jul 11;8:1160. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01160. eCollection 2017.
In the present article, we investigate predictors of how often a scientific article is cited. Specifically, we focus on the influence of two often neglected predictors of citation rate: effect size and sample size, using samples from two psychological topical areas. Both can be considered as indicators of the importance of an article and (or observed) statistical power, and should, especially in applied fields, predict citation rates. In Study 1, effect size did not have an influence on citation rates across a topical area, both with and without controlling for numerous variables that have been previously linked to citation rates. In contrast, sample size predicted citation rates, but only while controlling for other variables. In Study 2, sample and partly effect sizes predicted citation rates, indicating that the relations vary even between scientific topical areas. Statistically significant results had more citations in Study 2 but not in Study 1. The results indicate that the importance (or power) of scientific findings may not be as strongly related to citation rate as is generally assumed.
在本文中，我们研究了科学文章被引用频率的预测因素。具体而言，我们聚焦于两个常被忽视的引用率预测因素的影响：效应量和样本量，使用来自两个心理学主题领域的样本。两者都可被视为文章重要性和（或观察到的）统计效力的指标，并且在应用领域尤其应该能够预测引用率。在研究1中，无论是否控制先前与引用率相关的众多变量，效应量在一个主题领域内对引用率均无影响。相比之下，样本量能够预测引用率，但仅在控制其他变量时才成立。在研究2中，样本量和部分效应量能够预测引用率，这表明即使在不同科学主题领域之间，这些关系也存在差异。在研究2中具有统计学显著结果的文章被引用次数更多，但在研究1中并非如此。结果表明，科学发现的重要性（或效力）可能并不像通常所认为的那样与引用率密切相关。
