The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, the tendency of journals to favor AI studies with positive results—especially those that demonstrate superior performance—skews the published literature, giving an incomplete view of the AI landscape [109].”
From Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [109]
In the citing paper
“and cited more frequently by others (citation bias) 19”
From Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta-analyses of health research: a review (2021) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fanelli, D. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 · Cited by 1,911 · cited 1×
“According to a meta-analysis of surveys [3], researchers report to engage in QRPs (about 34%) much more often than in research misconduct (about 2%).”
BackgroundThe Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses
IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. (2016) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210 · Cited by 1,483
Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.218 · Cited by 1,465
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
Callaham, M. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2847 · Cited by 644
How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network
Greenberg, S. A. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2680 · Cited by 499
Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions
Steneck, N. H. (2006) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/pl00022268 · Cited by 407
What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers?
Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2004) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010 · Cited by 368
Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: Frequency of citation and outcome.
Ravnskov, U. (1992) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6844.15 · Cited by 313
Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310377113 · Cited by 302
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Peritz, 1992, The use of meta-analyses for citation studies: an illustrative example, Informetrics, 91, 358
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making
Cross, J. L., Choma, M. A., & Onofrey, J. A. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000651 · Cited by 607
Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results
Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M., & Smolčić, V. Š. (2017) · Biochemia Medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2017.030201 · Cited by 546
Misinformation in and about science
West, J. D., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1912444117 · Cited by 391
Page, M. J., Sterne, J. A. C., Higgins, J. P. T., & Egger, M. (2021) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1468 · Cited by 294
Research Weaving: Visualizing the Future of Research Synthesis
Nakagawa, S., Samarasinghe, G., Haddaway, N., Westgate, M. J., O’Dea, R. E., Noble, D. W. A., & Lagisz, M. (2018) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.007 · Cited by 278
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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
