The correlation between paper length and citations: a meta-analysis
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
A meta-analysis of 24 effect sizes showed a Pearson correlation of 0.31 between paper length and the number of citations.
“while a meta-analysis of 24 effect sizes showed a Pearson correlation of 0.31 between paper length and the number of citations (Xie et al., 2019).”
From Can ChatGPT be used to predict citation counts, readership, and social media interaction? An exploration among 2222 scientific abstracts (2024) · cites this paper as Xie et al., 2019
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 40
- Authors
- Xie, J., Gong, K., Cheng, Y., & Ke, Q.
- Affiliations
- Nanjing University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Cheng, Ying
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2019-02-04
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 763-786
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2912842712
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Social Science Foundation of China (17BTQ014)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › 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
- paper length, citation counts, bibliometric indicators, citation impact, citation window, journal quality, research evaluation
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
