Association between productivity and journal impact across disciplines and career age

Andre S. Sunahara ,1 Matjaž Perc ,2,3,4,5 and Haroldo V. Ribeiro 1,* 1Departamento de Física, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, PR 87020-900, Brazil 2Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia 3Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung 404332, Taiwan 4Alma Mater Europaea, Slovenska ulica 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia 5Complexity Science Hub Vienna, Josefstädterstraße 39, 1080 Vienna, Austria

[1]  J.C. Correa,et al.  The Sci-Hub effect on papers’ citations , 2021, Scientometrics.

[2]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  Scientific Genius: A Psychology of Science , 1988 .

[3]  Vincent A. Traag,et al.  Systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK REF , 2019, Palgrave Communications.

[4]  P. Gustafson,et al.  Conservative prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models , 2006 .

[5]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact , 2016, Science.

[6]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Simon Wessely,et al.  Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? , 1998, The Lancet.

[8]  Manolis Antonoyiannakis,et al.  Impact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why citation averages are scale dependent , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[9]  Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote,et al.  A further step forward in measuring journals' scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[10]  A. Kumar,et al.  How many is too many? , 1979, Postgraduate medicine.

[11]  D. Price.  Little Science, Big Science , 1965 .

[12]  Stefano Allesina,et al.  Supplemental Materials for : And , not Or : Quality , Quantity in Scientific Publishing , 2017 .

[13]  E. Garfield.  Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[14]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Science of Science , 2018, Science.

[15]  David Moher,et al.  Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure , 2018, PLoS biology.

[16]  Pierre Azoulay,et al.  Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Academic Life Sciences , 2009 .

[17]  M. White,et al.  On the Relation Between Productivity and Impact , 1978 .

[18]  V. A. Traag,et al.  Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations , 2019, Quantitative Science Studies.

[19]  Juan Pablo Alperin,et al.  The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future , 2018, F1000Research.

[20]  Marek Gagolewski,et al.  Scientific impact assessment cannot be fair , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[21]  Andrey Rzhetsky,et al.  Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies , 2013, ArXiv.

[22]  Miss A.O. Penney.  (b) , 1974, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[23]  Clément Bosquet,et al.  Are academics who publish more also more cited? Individual determinants of publication and citation records , 2013, Scientometrics.

[24]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Skewness of citation impact data and covariates of citation distributions: A large-scale empirical analysis based on Web of Science data , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[25]  Brian D. Cameron,et al.  Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data: Uses, Abuses, and Implications , 2005 .

[26]  Jevin D. West,et al.  Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines and preprint archives , 2019, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be statistically wrong. , 2017, F1000Research.

[28]  John Salvatier,et al.  Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3 , 2016, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[29]  Hanna Kokko,et al.  Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective , 2019, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[30]  S. M. Lawani,et al.  Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research , 2005, Scientometrics.

[31]  J. Shah,et al.  Young , 1935, Annals of Medical History.

[32]  Thomas de Quincey.  [Quantity] , 2003, The Works of Thomas De Quincey, Vol. 20: Prefaces &c., to the Collected Editions, Published Addenda, Marginalia, Manuscript Addenda, Undatable Manuscripts.

[33]  Matthijs Baas,et al.  The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence , 2010 .

[34]  Boris Forthmann,et al.  Investigating the quantity–quality relationship in scientific creativity: an empirical examination of expected residual variance and the tilted funnel hypothesis , 2020, Scientometrics.

[35]  Peter Kulchyski.  and , 2015 .

[36]  Sergey Kolesnikov,et al.  Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact? , 2018, Scientometrics.

[37]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Impact Factor : A brief history , critique , and discussion of adverse effects , 2018 .

[38]  H. Stanley,et al.  The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems , 2017 .

[39]  Wayne Dennis,et al.  Productivity among American psychologists. , 1954 .

[40]  James Wilsdon.  The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management , 2016 .

[41]  V. Larivière,et al.  How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact , 2016, PloS one.

[42]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[43]  N. Haslam,et al.  Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication , 2009 .

[44]  Richard Smith,et al.  Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals , 2006 .

[45]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[46]  Vahid Garousi,et al.  Quantity versus impact of software engineering papers: a quantitative study , 2017, Scientometrics.

[47]  L. Bromham,et al.  Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success , 2016, Nature.

[48]  Juan Pablo Alperin,et al.  Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations , 2019, eLife.

[49]  Kendall Powell,et al.  Young, talented and fed-up: scientists tell their stories , 2016, Nature.

[50]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  M. Gagolewski,et al.  Three dimensions of scientific impact , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[52]  E. Garfield.  The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[53]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance , 2002, Scientometrics.

[54]  D. Hicks.  Performance-based university research funding systems , 2012 .

[55]  U. Sandström,et al.  Quantity and/or Quality? The Importance of Publishing Many Papers , 2016, PloS one.

[56]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce , 2014, PloS one.

[57]  Gregory J. Feist.  Quantity, Quality, and Depth of Research as Influences on Scientific Eminence: Is Quantity Most Important? , 1997 .

[58]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Productivity does not equal usefulness , 2018, Scientometrics.