RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparing the Citation Performance of PNAS Papers by Submission Track
JF bioRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
SP 036616
DO 10.1101/036616
A1 Philip M. Davis
YR 2016
UL http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/01/13/036616.1.abstract
AB 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.