Cited by 197scientometrics and bibliometrics researchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Open access
Duyx, Bram, Urlings, Miriam J.E., Swaen, Gerard M.H., Bouter, Lex M., Zeegers, Maurice P.·2017·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives Citation bias concerns the selective citation of scientific articles based on their results. We brought together all available evidence on citation bias across scientific disciplines and quantified its impact.Study design and setting An extensive search strategy was applied to the Web of Science Core Collection and Medline, yielding 52 studies in total. We classified these studies on scientific discipline, selection method, and other variables. We also performed random-effects meta-analyses to pool the effect of positive vs. negative results on subsequent citations. Finally, we checked for other determinants of citation as reported in the citation bias literature.Results Evidence for the occurrence of citation bias was most prominent in the biomedical sciences and least in the natural sciences. Articles with statistically significant results were cited 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-1.8) times more often than articles with nonsignificant results. Articles in which the authors explicitly conclude to have found support for their hypothesis were cited 2.7 (CI 2.0-3.7) times as often. Article results and journal impact factor were associated with citation more often than any other reported determinant.Conclusion Similar to what we already know on publication bias, also citation bias can lead to an overrepresentation of positive results and unfounded beliefs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Duyx B, Urlings MJE, Swaen G, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Protocol for systematic review of citation bias 2015. Available at http://hdl. handle.net/10411/20710. Accessed September 30, 2016.
  2. Peritz BC. The use of meta-analyses for citation studies: an illustra- tive example. Informetrics 1992;91:358e76.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duyx, B., Urlings, M. J. E., Swaen, G. M. H., Bouter, L. M., & Zeegers, M. P.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Duyx, Bram
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
88
Pages
92-101
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2623032108
Cited by
197
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Chemical Industry Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
citation bias, publication bias, positive results, non-significant results, scientific citations, journal impact factor, hypothesis confirmation, scientific disciplines
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publication Bias, Journal Impact Factor

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