Predictors of citation rates and the problem of citation bias: a scoping review

To systematically map the factors associated with citation rates, to categorize the types of studies evaluating these factors, and to obtain an overall status of citation bias in scientific health literature.

A scoping review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping review extension checklist. Four electronic databases were searched, and the reference-lists of all included articles were screened. Empirical meta-research studies reporting any source of predictors of citation rates and/or citation bias within health care were included. Data are presented by descriptive statistics such as frequencies, portions, and percentages.

A total of 165 studies were included. Fifty-four distinct factors of citation rates were evaluated in 786 quantitative analyses. Regardless of using the same basic methodological approach to calculate citation rate, 78 studies (48%) aimed to examined citation bias, whereas 79 studies (48%) aimed to optimizing article characteristics to enhance authors' own citation rates. The remaining seven studies (4%) analyzed infrastructural characteristics at publication level to make all studies more accessible.

Seventy-nine of the 165 included studies (48%) explicitly recommended modifying paper characteristics-such as title length or author count-to boost citations rather than prioritizing scientific contribution. Such recommendations may conflict with principles of scientific integrity, which emphasize relevance and methodological rigor over strategic citation practices. Given the high proportion of analyses identifying a significant increase in citation rates, publication bias cannot be ruled out.

Why was the study done? Within scientific research, it is important to cite previous research. This is done for specific reasons, including crediting earlier authors and providing a credible and trustworthy background for conducting the study. However, findings suggest that citations are not always chosen for their intended purpose. This is known as citation bias. What did the researchers do? The researchers searched for all existing studies evaluating predictors of citation rate, ie, how often is a specific study referred to by other researchers. They systematically mapped these studies to find out both the level of citation bias and the types of citation bias present in scientific health literature. To find these studies, the researchers searched four electronic databases and screened the reference lists of all included studies to be sure to include as many studies as possible. What did the researchers find? The researchers found a total of 165 studies that evaluated predictors of citation rate in no less than 786 analyses. However, the researchers found that the studies differed in the way they evaluated predictors of citation rate, as 78 studies (48%) evaluated citation bias, meaning if researchers referred to earlier studies in a nonscientific way, whereas 79 studies (48%) evaluated predictors of citation rate to identify ways to increase authors' own citation rates. The remaining seven studies (4%) wanted to find characteristics that could make the studies more accessible. What do the findings mean? The study identified a very large number of predictors of citation rate being evaluated and even indicating risk of citation bias. Furthermore, the study found that 48% of the papers recommended changing things like title length or number of authors to get more citations, instead of focusing on the actual scientific contribution. These recommendations might, however, be in conflict with scientific principles and honesty.