Abstract
Characteristics of highly and poorly cited research articles (with Abstracts) published in The Lancet over a three-year period were examined. These characteristics included numerical (numbers of authors, references, citations, Abstract words, journal pages), organizational (first author country, institution type, institution name), and medical (medical condition, study approach, study type, sample size, study outcome). Compared to the least cited articles, the most cited have three to five times the median number of authors per article, fifty to six hundred percent greater median number of references per article, 110 to 490 times the median number of citations per article, 2.5 to almost seven times the median number of Abstract words per article, and 2.5 to 3.5 times the median number of pages per article.
The most cited articles’ medical themes emphasize breast cancer, diabetes, coronary circulation, and HIV immune system problems, focusing on large-scale clinical trials of drugs. The least cited articles’ themes essentially do not address the above medical issues, especially from a clinical trials perspective, cover a much broader range of topics, and have much more emphasis on social and reproductive health issues. Finally, for sample sizes of clinical trials specifically, those of the most cited articles ranged from a median of about 1500 to 2500, whereas those of the least cited articles ranged from 30 to 40.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lehrl, S., The citation frequency for prominent researchers in German otorhinolaryngology over 10 years. HNO, 53(5) (2005) 415–422.
Smith, S. D., Is an article in a top journal a top article? Financial Management, 33(4) (2004) 133–149.
Lee, K. P., Schotland, M., Bacchetti, P., Bero, L. A., Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA — Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21) (2002) 2805–2808.
Kostoff, R. N., The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 43(1) (1998) 27–43.
Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., Weberr, E., Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA — Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21) (2002) 2847–2850.
Kostoff, R. N., Buchtel, H., Andrews, J., Pfeil, K., The hidden structure of neuropsychology: text mining of the journal Cortex: 1991–2001. Cortex, 41(2) (2005) 103–115.
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA — Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(2) (2005) 218–228.
Borner, K., Dall’asta, L., Ke, W. M. et al., Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, 10(4) (2005) 57–67.
Schloegl, C., Stock, W. G., Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals — Citation analysis versus reader survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(13) (2004) 1155–1168.
Gluud, L. L., Sorensen, T. I. A., Gotzsche, P. C. et al., The journal impact factor as a predictor of trial quality and outcomes: Cohort study of hepatobiliary randomized clinical trials. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 100(11) (2005) 2431–2435.
Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R. et al., Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 337(8746) (1991) 867–872.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kostoff, R.N. The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet . Scientometrics 72, 513–520 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1573-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1573-7