The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Journal, publication year, word count, number of authors, institutional diversity, overall semantic positivity, and subject field have been previously associated with higher impact and/or promotional language.
“We additionally obtained the information on records’ features that have been previously associated with higher impact and / or promotional language in prior studies2,24,52,53: journal (Science, Nature, PNAS), publication year, word count (number of words in the abstract), number of authors, institutional diversity (number of listed affiliations divided by the number of authors; higher score”
From Scientific publications that use promotional language in the abstract receive more citations and public attention (2025) · cites this paper as [52]
Multi-author papers are known to receive higher citation counts, partially due to effects of self-citation.
“Multi-author papers are known to receive higher citation counts (Gazni and Didegah, 2011), partially due to the effects of self-citation (Fowler and Aksnes, 2007), and therefore we include the number of authors on the paper.”
From Measuring the Evolution of a Scientific Field through Citation Frames (2018) · cites this paper as Gazni and Didegah, 2011
Citations
Cites
Baldi, S. (1998) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657504 · Cited by 335
Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research
Lawani, S. M. (1986) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02016604 · Cited by 222
Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?
Beaver, D. D. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000034382.85360.cd · Cited by 174
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Abt, H. A. (2007). The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72(1), 105–115. · DOI
- Beaver, D. B. (1986). Collaboration and teamwork in physics. Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 36, 14–18. · DOI
- Bordons, M., Garcia Jover, F., & Barrigon, S. (1993). Is collaboration improving research visibility? Research Evaluation, 3(1), 19–24. · DOI
- Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51, 69–115. · DOI
- Glänzel, W., & De Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75–89. · DOI
- Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40, 541–554. · DOI
- Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. · DOI
- Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126. · DOI
- Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313–323. · DOI
- Patel, N. (1972). Collaboration in the professional growth of American Sociology. Social Science Information, 12(6), 77–92. · DOI
- Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometrics, 74(3), 361–377. · DOI
- Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams: mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Currency and Doubleday.
- Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications. Scientometrics, 81(1), 177–193. · DOI
- Van Raan, A. F. J. (1997). Science as an international enterprise. Science and Public Policy, 24(5), 290–300. · DOI
- Wagner-Doebler, R. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of collaboration behaviour since 1800 from a bibliometric point of view. Scientometrics, 52, 503–517. · DOI
- Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan A. F. J. (2010). Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2167v2 . Accessed 2 June 2010. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Factors Affecting Number of Citations: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature
Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2 · Cited by 912
Measuring the Evolution of a Scientific Field through Citation Frames
Jurgens, D., Kumar, S., Hoover, R., McFarland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00028 · Cited by 212
The Impact of Author-Selected Keywords on Citation Counts
Uddin, S., & Khan, A. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.004 · Cited by 143
Stavrova, O., Kleinberg, B., Evans, A. M., & Ivanović, M. (2025) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-025-00293-8 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Gazni, A., & Didegah, F.
- Affiliations
- Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Didegah, Fereshteh
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2011-01-25
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 251-265
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2060348061
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 8.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Keywords
- research collaboration, citation impact, co-authorship, number of authors, inter-institutional collaboration, international cooperation, subject fields, highly cited papers, authorship patterns
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
