Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Comparing the Citation Performance of PNAS Papers by Submission Track

View ORCID ProfilePhilip M. Davis
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/036616
Philip M. Davis
Independent Researcher and Publishing Consultant, Phil Davis Consulting, ,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Philip M. Davis
  • For correspondence: pmd8@cornell.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether papers contributed by National Academy of Sciences (NAS) members perform differently than direct submissions.

Data/Methods: 55,889 original papers published in PNAS from 1997 through 2014. Regression analysis measuring total citations, controlling for editorial track (Contributed, Direct, Communicated), date of publication, and paper topic.

Main findings: Contributed papers consistently underperformed against Direct submissions, receiving 9% fewer citations, ceteris paribus. The effect was greatest for Social Sciences papers (12% fewer citations). Nonetheless, the main effect has attenuated over the past decade, from 13.6% fewer citations in 2005 to just 2.2% fewer citations in 2014.

Significance: Successive editorial policies placing limits, restrictions, and other qualifications on the publication privileges of NAS members may be responsible for the submission of better performing Contributed papers.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 13, 2016.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparing the Citation Performance of PNAS Papers by Submission Track
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparing the Citation Performance of PNAS Papers by Submission Track
Philip M. Davis
bioRxiv 036616; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/036616
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparing the Citation Performance of PNAS Papers by Submission Track
Philip M. Davis
bioRxiv 036616; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/036616

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (2434)
  • Biochemistry (4796)
  • Bioengineering (3335)
  • Bioinformatics (14704)
  • Biophysics (6649)
  • Cancer Biology (5180)
  • Cell Biology (7440)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (4374)
  • Ecology (6890)
  • Epidemiology (2057)
  • Evolutionary Biology (9930)
  • Genetics (7351)
  • Genomics (9542)
  • Immunology (4570)
  • Microbiology (12702)
  • Molecular Biology (4954)
  • Neuroscience (28382)
  • Paleontology (199)
  • Pathology (809)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (1394)
  • Physiology (2025)
  • Plant Biology (4516)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (978)
  • Synthetic Biology (1302)
  • Systems Biology (3919)
  • Zoology (729)