Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine

Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of “multiple publication” in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[2]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[3]  W. Hagstrom Inputs, Outputs, and the Prestige of University Science Departments , 1971 .

[4]  J. Ziman,et al.  Public knowledge. An essay concerning the social dimension of science , 1970, Medical History.

[5]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Evaluation: A Systematic Approach , 1979 .

[6]  W. Broad The publishing game: getting more for less. , 1981, Science.

[7]  E. Huth Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[8]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property , 1988, Isis.

[9]  D. Laband Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors , 1990 .

[10]  John A. Stewart Drifting Continents and Colliding Paradigms: Perspectives on the Geoscience Revolution , 1990 .

[11]  L. Hargens,et al.  Are sociologists’ publications uncited? Citation rates of journal articles, chapters, and books , 1991 .

[12]  J. Tainer Science, citation, and funding. , 1991, Science.

[13]  L. Hamilton 217-249 inRegression with Graphics: A Second Course in Applied Statistics , 1991 .

[14]  Dual publication and manipulation of the editorial process. , 1990, Dermatologica.

[15]  Echoes in the halls: thoughts on double publication. , 1992 .

[16]  T Waldron,et al.  Is duplicate publishing on the increase? , 1992, BMJ.

[17]  M. Susser,et al.  Prior, duplicate, repetitive, fragmented, and redundant publication and editorial decisions. , 1993, American journal of public health.

[18]  H. A. Abt,et al.  INSTITUTIONAL PRODUCTIVITIES 1993 , 1994 .

[19]  R. K. Young,et al.  Duplicate publication in the nursing literature. , 1995, Image--the journal of nursing scholarship.

[20]  D. Moher,et al.  Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research , 1996, The Lancet.

[21]  M. Tramèr,et al.  Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study , 1997, BMJ.

[22]  C. Lengeler,et al.  Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German , 1997, The Lancet.

[23]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Regression Analysis of Count Data , 1998 .

[24]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Regression Analysis of Count Data , 1998 .

[25]  Tom Jefferson,et al.  Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? , 1998, Science and engineering ethics.

[26]  S. Baldi Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations : A network-analytic model , 1998 .

[27]  Tx Station Stata Statistical Software: Release 7. , 2001 .

[28]  H. P. Dalen,et al.  Attention and the art of scientific publishing , 2001 .

[29]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata, 2nd Edition , 2005 .

[30]  M. Schein,et al.  Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? , 2001, Surgery.

[31]  Tom Tregenza,et al.  Gender bias in the refereeing process , 2002 .

[32]  R. Conroy,et al.  Choosing an Appropriate Real-Life Measure of Effect Size: The Case of a Continuous Predictor and a Binary Outcome , 2002 .

[33]  Brian Everitt,et al.  A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using SPSS , 2003 .

[34]  D. Barnes,et al.  Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: cross-sectional survey of editors and authors , 2003, Journal of medical ethics.

[35]  P. Lawrence The politics of publication , 2003, Nature.

[36]  Xiaoyi Jiang,et al.  Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals: the tip of the iceberg? , 2004, Ophthalmology.

[37]  Who did what? , 2004 .

[38]  C. Deangelis Duplicate publication, multiple problems. , 2004, JAMA.

[39]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? , 2004, Scientometrics.

[40]  K. Henkens,et al.  Signals in Science - on the Importance of Signaling in Gaining Attention in Science , 2004 .

[41]  A. Raan Measuring Science: Capita Selecta of Current Main Issues , 2004 .

[42]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon , 2004, Scientometrics.

[43]  L. Philip Schumm Review of Data Analysis Using Stata by Kohler and Kreuter , 2005 .

[44]  Frauke Kreuter,et al.  Data Analysis Using Stata , 2005 .

[45]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Committee peer review at an international research foundation: predictive validity and fairness of selection decisions on post-graduate fellowship applications , 2005 .

[46]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions , 2005, Scientometrics.

[47]  Plagiarism criteria ignore the way research evolves , 2005, Nature.

[48]  Misconduct: pressure to achieve corrodes ideals , 2005, Nature.

[49]  H. Moed Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Information Science & Knowledge Management) , 2005 .

[50]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A characterization of scientometric distributions based on harmonic means , 2005, Scientometrics.

[51]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Scientists behaving badly , 2005, Nature.

[52]  M. Wadman One in three scientists confesses to having sinned , 2005, Nature.

[53]  Hans-Dieter Daniel,et al.  Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity , 2005, Learn. Publ..

[54]  I. Taylor Academia's ‘misconduct’ is acceptable to industry , 2005, Nature.

[55]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Criteria Used by a Peer Review Committee for Selection of Research Fellows: A Boolean Probit Analysis , 2005 .

[56]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review - A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants , 2006, Scientometrics.

[57]  B. Everitt,et al.  A Handbook of Statistical Analyses using R , 2006 .

[58]  Ermenegyldo Munhoz Junior Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas , 2006 .

[59]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study , 2006 .

[60]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Gatekeepers of science - Effects of external reviewers' attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[61]  J. PérezMartín,et al.  [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors]. , 2008, Revista alergia Mexico.