CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-Ranked Social Science Journal Articles Can Be Identified from Early Citation Information

Stern, David I.·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0112520PMC PMC4229225
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0112520

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. J Anderson DL Tressler, 2013, The New Zealand performance based research fund and its impact on publication activity in economics, University of Waikato Working Paper in Economics 3/13
  2. G Bertocchi, 2013, Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy, IZA Discussion Paper 7739
  3. DI Stern, 2013, Uncertainty measures for economics journal impact factors, Journal of Economic Literature, 51(1), 173, 10.1257/jel.51.1.173 · DOI
  4. GA Lozano, 2012, The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2140, 10.1002/asi.22731 · DOI
  5. JK Vanclay, 2012, Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping stone to journal certification?, Scientometrics, 92, 211, 10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0 · DOI
  6. P Hegarty, 2012, The consequences of predicting impact in psychology using journal impact factors, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 72, 10.1177/1745691611429356 · DOI
  7. D Sgroi, 2013, How should peer-review panels behave?, Economic Journal, 123, F255, 10.1111/ecoj.12070 · DOI
  8. DN Laband, 2013, On the use and abuse of economics journal rankings, Economic Journal, 123, F223, 10.1111/ecoj.12067 · DOI
  9. J Adams, 2005, Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact, Scientometrics, 63(3), 567, 10.1007/s11192-005-0228-9 · DOI
  10. L Waltman, 2011, Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis, Scientometrics, 87, 467, 10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5 · DOI
  11. J Wang, 2013, Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation, Scientometrics, 94(3), 851, 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9 · DOI
  12. JM Levitt, 2011, A combined bibliometric indicator to predict article impact, Information Processing and Management, 47, 300, 10.1016/j.ipm.2010.09.005 · DOI
  13. L Bornmann, 2014, How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date, Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 175, 10.1016/j.joi.2013.11.005 · DOI
  14. Fu LD, Aliferis C (2008) Models for predicting and explaining citation count of biomedical articles. AMIA 2008 Symposium Proceedings: 222–226.
  15. A Ibáñez, 2009, Predicting citation count of Bioinformatics papers within four years of publication, Bioinformatics, 25(24), 3303, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp585 · DOI
  16. C Lokker, 2008, Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study, British Medical Journal, 336, 655, 10.1136/bmj.39482.526713.BE · DOI
  17. MJ Lovaglia, 1991, Predicting citations to journal articles: The ideal number of references, The American Sociologist, 22, 49, 10.1007/BF02691867 · DOI
  18. GD Walters, 2006, Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Author impact versus journal impact, Scientometrics, 69(3), 499, 10.1007/s11192-006-0166-1 · DOI
  19. D Bertismas, 2014, Moneyball for academics: Network analysis for predicting research impact, Paper presented at the
  20. JE Hirsch, 2007, Does the h index have predictive power?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(49), 19193, 10.1073/pnas.0707962104 · DOI
  21. A Mazloumian, 2012, Predicting scholars' scientific impact, PLoS One, 7(11), e49246, 10.1371/journal.pone.0049246 · DOI
  22. T Van Leeuwen, 2012, Discussing some basic critique on journal impact factors: revision of earlier comments, Scientometrics, 92, 443, 10.1007/s11192-012-0677-x · DOI
  23. D Wang, 2013, Quantifying long-term scientific impact, Science, 342, 127, 10.1126/science.1237825 · DOI · Paper page
  24. MJ Stringer, 2008, Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information, PLoS One, 3(2), e1683, 10.1371/journal.pone.0001683 · DOI
  25. MJ Stringer, 2010, Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1377, 10.1002/asi.21335 · DOI
  26. McCabe MJ, Snyder CM (in press) Does online availability increase citations? Theory and evidence from a panel of economics and business journals. Review of Economics and Statistics. · DOI
  27. AW Harzing, 2013, Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences?, Scientometrics, 94, 23, 10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1 · DOI
  28. 2010, RATS, Version 8: User's Guide, Evanston IL: Estima
  29. McCullagh P, Nelder J (1989) Generalized Linear Models. London: Chapman and Hall. · DOI · Paper page
  30. HA White, 1980, A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity, Econometrica, 48, 817, 10.2307/1912934 · DOI · Paper page
  31. L Bornmann, 2013, Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P100), Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 933, 10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.003 · DOI
  32. Heffetz O, Frank RH (2011) Preferences for status: Evidence and economic implications. In: Benhabib J, Jackson MO, Bisin A, editors. Handbook of Social Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 69–92. · DOI
  33. RM Seyfarth, 1981, Do monkeys rank each other?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(3), 447, 10.1017/S0140525X00009821 · DOI
  34. AM Colman, 1995, A bibliometric evaluation of the research performance of British university politics departments: Publications in leading journals, Scientometrics, 32(1), 49, 10.1007/BF02020188 · DOI
  35. C Oppenheim, 1996, Do citations count? Citation indexing and the research assessment exercise, Serials, 9, 155, 10.1629/09155 · DOI
  36. M Norris, 2003, Citation counts and the research assessment exercise V: Archaeology and the 2001 RAE, Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 709, 10.1108/00220410310698734 · DOI
  37. B Süssmuth, 2006, Towards a European economics of economics: Monitoring a decade of top research and providing some explanation, Scientometrics, 66(3), 579, 10.1007/s11192-006-0042-z · DOI
  38. L Bornmann, 2011, Scientific peer review, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 199, 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 42

Metadata

Authors
Stern, D. I.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-11-12
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
e112520
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0112520
PMC
PMC4229225
Cited by
42
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)

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