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

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

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

[4]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  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.

[17]  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 .

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

[19]  Hendrik P. van Dalen,et al.  Wage Structure and the Incentive Effect of Promotions , 2004 .

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

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

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

[23]  Who did what? , 2004 .

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

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

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

[27]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[57]  C. Achilles,et al.  Evaluation: A Systematic Approach , 1980 .

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

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

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

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