Cited by 36scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Writing and PublishingPublishing and Scholarly Communication

Title length

Open access
Bramoullé, Yann, Ductor, Lorenzo·2018·Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

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.jebo.2018.01.014

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • The association between title length and citation of the paper has remained inconclusive.

    “Association of title’s length and citation of the paper has remained inconclusive (47, 48), however, papers with shorter titles (40) especially when presenting study conclusion (49) receive more citations (40).”

    From The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Title (2019) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Results (section 4) say shorter titles tend to be more cited, even after controlling for journal and research-team characteristics. The Conclusions (section 5) describe the correlation as strong and robust; what remains uncertain is whether title length causes the difference in citations, not whether an association exists. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [6]6. Ductor, L. , 2015. Does coauthorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 77 (3), 385-407 .
  2. [22]22. Kuznets, S. , 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. Am. Econ. Rev. 45 (1), 1-28 .
  3. [25]25. Merton, R.K. , 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159 (3810), 56-63 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bramoullé, Y., & Ductor, L.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Middlesex University London (GB)
Corresponding author
Ductor, Lorenzo
Venue
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
150
Pages
311-324
ISSN
0167-2681 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214753194
Cited by
36
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (publishedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
article titles, title length, scientific quality, journal quality, citation impact, research innovation, economics literature, EconLit

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