A good friend of mine recently complained online that no one would read her new paper. Friends immediately responded that they were highly interested in her work. As online posts are wont to do, comments quickly escalated, with one commenter suggesting to cite each other’s work. While this last comment was made in jest and the friend did not seriously suggest setting up a citation ring, it made me wonder whether the number of citations is indeed related to the number of references. Do some researchers cite other researchers, just because they had cited them?
Like so many things, this question has already been examined. Webster, Jonason and Schember (2009) took 562 articles published in Ethology and Sociobiology (1979-1996) and its successor Evolution and Human Behavior (1997-2002) and compared the number of references of each article to the number of citations. Because the distributions were skewered (i.e., the medians were different from the means), they applied log transformations. Webster et al. (2009) found a surprisingly strong correlation of .44, which suggests that articles with more references indeed receive more citations.
The findings of Webster et al. (2009) bothered me more than it should have. Could it really be that some groups of researchers cite each other frequently? There must be another explanation. One issue that was unclear to me is the extent to which the analysis of Webster et al. (2009) included editorials, errata, commentaries, replies, letters to the editor, and book reviews. These kinds of publications tend to have few references and are seldom cited. As such, they represent outliers and their inclusion could have increased the correlation considerably.
To exclude the possible influence of those editorials and such, I quickly downloaded from Thomson’s Web of Science articles that were published in Memory, Applied Cognitive Psychology and Memory & Cognition in 2004, 2005 and 2006. The years 2004, 2005 and 2006 were selected, because any citation that is made for purely reciprocal reasons is likely to have been made within 10 years or so. Editorials and such were omitted from the subsequent analyses.
For each data set, I calculated one correlation between the number of references and citations. Like Webster et al. (2009), I also applied log transformations to account for the skewered nature of the data. The nine correlations are: r(63) = .275, p = .029, r(75) = .109, p = .351, r(76) = .305, p = .007, r(75) = .191, p = .101, r(73) = .479, p < .001, r(84) = .256, p = .019, r(119) = .142, p = .125, r(125) = .265, p = .003, r(149) = .239, p = .003, respectively. When I averaged the nine correlations (M = .246), then the correlation appears to be less strong than the correlation of Webster et al. (2009). Furthermore, for each journal, one of the three correlations was not significant, suggesting that the effect is not very robust.
Although the range of the correlations is lower than the correlation that was found by Webster et al. (2009), the average of these nine correlations seems to suggest that it might indeed be worthwhile to add a few references. However, supplemental regression analyses indicate that, for every additional 4 references, a study will receive 1 extra citation after a 10-year period (B = 0.282). In other words, the effect seems to be there, but it does not seem to be large or robust. Furthermore, there are at least three other explanations that might account for the relation between references and citations beyond purely reciprocal reasons.
First, whereas I omitted editorials and such from the analyses, I did not account for brief reports and reviews. Brief reports (or rapid communications), regardless whether the journal has such a category, tend to be smaller in scope and report preliminary results. If the results are promising, then a larger study is surely to follow. Brief reports therefore tend to have fewer references and to receive fewer citations too. Reviews, on the other hand, are supposed to provide an overview of the literature and therefore include many references. They are also known to receive many citations.
Second, it is possible that the relation between references and citations reflects differences in the interest in the topics. There are few previous studies to which an article about a niche topic can refer. Similarly, there will be few subsequent studies that can cite the article. However, when the topic is popular, there are many previous studies to which an article can refer and there will be many studies which can cite the article.
Third, it is also possible that the relation between references and citations reflects the quality of the articles. A high quality study has a complete literature review, offers support for its assumptions, makes informed decisions about the design of the study, and puts its results into context. A study which addresses these issues is likely to have more references than a study which ignores these issues. It is also likely to receive more citations.
Oddly enough, I find the size of the relation between references and citations reassuring. The effect is sufficiently small to exclude the existence of extensive citation rings or a wide-spread culture of reciprocal citations, at least in cognitive psychology. Moreover, the relation can be explained by benign factors, such as the type, the topic and the quality of articles. As a struggling academic, it is strangely comforting that there does not appear to be a short-cut for success.
Webster, G. D., Jonason, P. K., & Schember, T. O. (2009). Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: Analyses of title words and citation counts. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 348-362.