Duyx Bram, Urlings Miriam J E, Swaen Gerard M H, Bouter Lex M, Zeegers Maurice P
1Care and Public Health Research Institute (School CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
2Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (School NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 Oct 2;2:17. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0041-z. eCollection 2017.
Knowledge development depends on an unbiased representation of the available evidence. Selective citation may distort this representation. Recently, some controversy emerged regarding the possible impact of swimming on childhood asthma, raising the question about the role of selective citation in this field. Our objective was to assess the occurrence and determinants of selective citation in scientific publications on the relationship between swimming in chlorinated pools and childhood asthma.
We identified scientific journal articles on this relationship via a systematic literature search. The following factors were taken into account: study outcome (authors' conclusion, data-based conclusion), other content-related article characteristics (article type, sample size, research quality, specificity), content-unrelated article characteristics (language, publication title, funding source, number of authors, number of affiliations, number of references, journal impact factor), author characteristics (gender, country, affiliation), and citation characteristics (time to citation, authority, self-citation). To assess the impact of these factors on citation, we performed a series of univariate and adjusted random-effects logistic regressions, with potential citation path as unit of analysis.
Thirty-six articles were identified in this network, consisting of 570 potential citation paths of which 191 (34%) were realized. There was strong evidence that articles with at least one author in common, cited each other more often than articles that had no common authors (odds ratio (OR) 5.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-8.8). Similarly, the chance of being cited was higher for articles that were empirical rather than narrative (OR 4.2, CI 2.6-6.7), that reported a large sample size (OR 5.8, CI 2.9-11.6), and that were written by authors with a high authority within the network (OR 4.1, CI 2.1-8.0). Further, there was some evidence for citation bias: articles that confirmed the relation between swimming and asthma were cited more often (OR 1.8, CI 1.1-2.9), but this finding was not robust.
There is clear evidence of selective citation in this research field, but the evidence for citation bias is not very strong.
知识的发展依赖于对现有证据的公正呈现。选择性引用可能会扭曲这种呈现。最近，关于游泳对儿童哮喘可能产生的影响出现了一些争议，这引发了关于该领域选择性引用作用的问题。我们的目的是评估在关于在氯化泳池游泳与儿童哮喘关系的科学出版物中选择性引用的发生情况及其决定因素。
我们通过系统的文献检索确定了关于这种关系的科学期刊文章。考虑了以下因素：研究结果（作者结论、基于数据的结论）、其他与内容相关的文章特征（文章类型、样本量、研究质量、特异性）、与内容无关的文章特征（语言、出版物标题、资金来源、作者数量、机构数量、参考文献数量、期刊影响因子）、作者特征（性别、国家、机构）以及引用特征（引用时间、权威性、自引）。为了评估这些因素对引用的影响，我们进行了一系列单变量和调整后的随机效应逻辑回归分析，以潜在引用路径作为分析单位。
在这个网络中识别出36篇文章，由570条潜在引用路径组成，其中191条（34%）被实现。有强有力的证据表明，至少有一位共同作者的文章相互引用的频率高于没有共同作者的文章（优势比（OR）为5.2，95%置信区间（CI）为3.1 - 8.8）。同样，实证性文章而非叙述性文章被引用的可能性更高（OR为4.2，CI为2.6 - 6.7），报告样本量大的文章（OR为5.8，CI为2.9 - 11.6），以及由网络内权威性高的作者撰写的文章（OR为4.1，CI为2.1 - 8.0）被引用的可能性更高。此外，有一些证据表明存在引用偏差：证实游泳与哮喘之间关系的文章被引用得更频繁（OR为1.8，CI为1.1 - 2.9），但这一发现并不稳健。
在这个研究领域有明确的选择性引用证据，但引用偏差的证据不是很强。
