[1] Abramo, G. (2018). Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 590-597.
[2] Abramo, G. (2024). The forced battle between peer-review and scientometric research assessment: Why the CoARA initiative is unsound. Research Evaluation, rvae021, DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvae021.
[3] Abramo G., Cicero T., & D'Angelo C.A. (2011). Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 659-667.
[4] Abramo, G., & D'Angelo, C.A. (2015). The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 746-761.
[5] Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., & Di Costa F. (2016). The effect of a country's name in the title of a publication on its visibility and citability. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1895-1909.
[6] Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., & Di Costa F. (2017a). Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science? Scientometrics, 111(1), 317-336.
[7] Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., & Di Costa F. (2017b). Specialization versus diversification in research activities: the extent, intensity and relatedness of field diversification by individual scientists. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1403-1418.
[8] Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., & Felici G. (2019). Predicting long-term publication impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 32-49.
[9] Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., & Murgia G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811-822. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002
[10] Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., & Reale E. (2019). Peer review vs bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications? Scientometrics, 121(1), 537-554.
[11] Aczel B., Szaszi B., & Holcombe A.O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review'. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6, 1-8.
[12] Adler R., Ewing J., & Taylor P. (2008). Citation statistics. International Mathematical Union, in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf
[13] Aksnes, D.W., & Taxt, R.E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at Norwegian University. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.
[14] Alimohammadi, D., & Sajjadi, M. (2009). Correlation between references and citations. Webology, 6(2), a71.
[15] Allen L., Jones C., Dolby K., Lynn D., & Walport M. (2009). Looking for landmarks: The role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS ONE, 4(6).
[16] Alohali Y.A., Fayed, M.S, Mesallam T., Abdelsamad Y., Almuhawas F., & Hagr A. (2022). A machine learning model to predict citation counts of scientific papers in otology field. BioMed Research International. DOI: 10.1155/2022/2239152
[17] Ante, L. (2022). The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses. Journal of Informetrics, 16(1), 101252. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101252
[18] Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?. College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372-382.
[19] Antoniou G.A., Antoniou S.A., Georgakarakos E.I., Sfyroeras G.S., & Georgiadis G.S. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of factors predicting increased citations in the vascular and endovascular literature. Annals of Vascular Surgery, 29(2), 286-92.
[20] Archambault É., Vignola-Gagné É., Côté G., Larivière V., & Gingras Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342.
[21] Baker, M. (2016). Stat-checking software stirs up psychology. Nature, 540(7631), 151-152.
[22] Ball, P. (2008). A longer paper gathers more citations. Nature, 455(7211), 274.
[23] Beranová L., Joachimiak M. P., Kliegr T., Rabby G., & Sklenák V. (2022). Why was this cited? Explainable machine learning applied to COVID-19 research literature. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2313-2349.
[24] Bertocchi G., Gambardella A., Jappelli T., Nappi C. A., & Peracchi F. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44(2), 451-466.
[25] Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul.
[26] Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.
[27] Bornmann, L. (2017). Measuring impact in research evaluations: A thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. Higher Education, 73(5), 775-787.
[28] Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286-291.
[29] Budtz Pedersen D., Grønvad J. F., & Hvidtfeldt R. (2020). Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities - A literature review. Research Evaluation, 29, 4-21.
[30] Calver, M.C., & Bradley, J.S. (2010). Patterns of citations of open access and non-open access conservation biology journal papers and book chapters. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 872-80.
[31] Caputo A., Manesh M.F., Farrukh M., Farzipoor Saen R., & Randolph-Seng B. (2022). Editorial: Over a half-century of management decision: a bibliometric overview. Management Decision, 60(8), 2129-2147.
[32] Cárdenas, J. (2023). Inteligencia artificial, investigación y revisión por pares: escenarios futuros y estrategias de acción [Artificial intelligence, research, and peer review: Future scenarios and action strategies]. Revista Española De Sociología, 32(4), a184. DOI: 10.22325/fes/res.2023.184
[33] Caron, E., & van Eck, N. J. (2014). Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering. In E. Noyons (Ed.), 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. “Context counts: Pathways to master big data and little data”(pp. 79-86). Leiden: CWTS-Leiden University.
[34] Chen S., Arsenault C., & Larivière V. (2015). Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary? Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 1034-1046.
[35] Cole S., Cole J.R., & Simon G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214/4523, 881-886.
[36] D'Angelo, C.A., & Abramo, G. (2015). Publication rates in 192 research fields. In A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A.A.A. Salah, C. Sugimoto (Eds), Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference -(ISSI 2015)
[37] de Winter, J. (2024). Can ChatGPT be used to predict citation counts, readership, and social media interaction? An exploration among 2222 scientific abstracts. Scientometrics, 129, 2469-2487.
[38] Devlin J., Chang M.W., Lee K., & Toutanova K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), 4171-4186.
[39] Dickersin K., Min Y., & Meinert C.L. (1992). Factors influencing publication of research results: Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA, 267(3), 374-378.
[40] Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861-873.
[41] Elgendi, M. (2019). Characteristics of a highly cited article: A machine learning perspective. IEEE Access, 7, 87977-87986.
[42] Fox C. W., Paine C. T., & Sauterey B. (2016). Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals. Ecology and Evolution, 6(21), 7717-7726.
[43] Fu, L. D., & Aliferis, C. (2008). Models for predicting and explaining citation count of biomedical articles. In AMIA Annual symposium proceedings (Vol. 2008, p. 222). American Medical Informatics Association.
[44] Gargouri Y., Hajjem C., Larivière V., Gingras Y., Carr L., Brody T., & Harnad S. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PloS ONE, 5(10), e13636.
[45] Glänzel, W., & de Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75-89.
[46] Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193
[47] Grant J., Brutscher P. B., Kirk S. E., Butler L., & Wooding S. (2010). Capturing Research Impacts: A Review of International Practice. Documented Briefing. Rand Corporation. www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB578.html
[48] Hanson M.A.,Gómez Barreiro, P., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D.(2023). The strain on scientific publishing. arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.15884.
[49] Heßler, N., & Ziegler, A. (2022). Evidence-based recommendations for increasing the citation frequency of original articles. Scientometrics, 127, 3367-3381.
[50] Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44, 193-215.
[51] Himani S., Kumar M. H., Enduri M. K., Begum S. S., Rageswari G., & Anamalamudi S. (2022). A comparative study on machine learning based prediction of citations of articles. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (2022), 1819-1824. DOI: 10.1109/ICOEI53556.2022.9777184.
[52] Hurley L. A., Ogier A. L., & Torvik V. I. (2013). Deconstructing the collaborative impact: Article and author characteristics that influence citation count. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 1-10.
[53] Jiang J., He D., & Ni C. (2013). The correlations between article citation and references' impact measures: What can we learn? Proceedings of the American society for information science and technology, 50(1), 1-4. DOI: 10.1002/meet.14505001162
[54] Kirman C.R., Simon T.W., & Hays S.M. (2019). Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 103, 73-85.
[55] Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The Manufacture of knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
[56] Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1991). Merton sociology of science: the first and the last sociology of science. Contemporary Sociology, 20(4), 522-526.
[57] Kousha K.,& Thelwall, M. (2024a). Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 4-12.
[58] Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024b). Factors associating with or predicting more cited or higher quality journal articles: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(3), 15-44.
[59] Langham-Putrow A., Bakker C., & Riegelman A. (2021). Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles. PLoS ONE, 16(6): e0253129. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253129
[60] Lansingh, V.C., & Carter, M.J. (2009). Does open access in ophthalmology affect how articles are subsequently cited in research?. Ophthalmology, 116(8), 1425-31.
[61] Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinary and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126-131.
[62] Larivière V., Vignola-Gagné E., Villeneuve C., Gélinas P., & Gingras Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: An analysis of Quebec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483-498. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0369-y
[63] Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London:Sage.
[64] Lee C.J., Sugimoto C.R., Zhang G., & Cronin B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.
[65] Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macro-level study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1973-1984.
[66] Liang W., Zhang Y., Cao H., Wang B., Ding D., Yang X., & Zou J. (2023). Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01783
[67] Liu J., Chen H., Liu Z., Bu Y., & Gu W. (2022). Non-linearity between referencing behavior and citation impact: A large-scale, discipline-level analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 16(3), 101318.
[68] Lundberg, S.M., & Lee, S.I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4765-4774.
[69] Mammola S., Fontaneto D., Martínez A., & Chichorro F. (2021). Impact of the reference list features on the number of citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 785-799.
[70] Mammola S., Piano E., Doretto A., Caprio E., & Chamberlain D. (2022). Measuring the influence of non-scientific features on citations. Scientometrics, 127(7), 4123-4137.
[71] Memon, A. R. (2020). Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Korean medical science, 35(27), e217.
[72] Merton R. K.(1973). Priorities in scientific discovery. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 286-324). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[73] Miettinen R., Tuunainen J., & Esko T. (2015). Epistemological, artefactual and interactional-institutional foundations of social impact of academic research. Minerva, 53, 257-77.
[74] Milat A.J., Bauman A.E., & Redman S. (2015). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13, 18.
[75] Mulkay, M. (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15(4-5), 637-656.
[76] Narin, F., & Whitlow, E.S. (1990). Measurement of scientific cooperation and co-authorship in CEC-related areas of science (Vol. 1). Publications Office of the European Union.
[77] OECD/Eurostat (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. Luxembourg: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264304604-en
[78] Özkent, Y. (2022). Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations. PLoS ONE, 17(2), e0263725. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263725.
[79] Penfield T., Baker M. J., Scoble R., & Wykes M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21-32.
[80] Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2022). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (4th ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
[81] Reale E., Barbara A., & Costantini A. (2007). Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: Lessons from the Italian experience. Research Evaluation, 16(3), 216-228.
[82] Rhoten, D., & Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36(1), 56-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.001
[83] Ribeiro M. T., Singh S., & Guestrin C. (2016). “Why should I trust you?”: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1135-1144.
[84] Rinia E.J., van Leeuwen Th.N., van Vuren H.G., & van Raan A.F.J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer-review criteria, evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27(1), 95-107.
[85] Rosenkrantz A. B., Doshi A. M., Ginocchio L. A., & Aphinyanaphongs Y. (2016). Use of a machine-learning method for predicting highly cited articles within general radiology journals. Academic Radiology, 23(12), 1573-1581.
[86] Rossi, M. J., & Brand, J. C. (2020). Journal article titles impact their citation rates. Arthroscopy, 36, 2025-2029.
[87] Ruan X., Zhu Y., Li J., & Cheng Y. (2020). Predicting the citation counts of individual papers via a BP neural network. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101039.
[88] Sanfilippo P., Hewitt A. W., & Mackey D. A. (2018). Plurality in multidisciplinary research: multiple institutional affiliations are associated with increased citations. PeerJ, 6, e5664. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5664
[89] Schroter S., Weber W. E. J., Loder E., Wilkinson J., & Kirkham J. J. (2022). Evaluation of editors' abilities to predict the citation potential of research manuscripts submitted to the BMJ: A cohort study. British Medical Journal, 379. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-073880.
[90] Schulz R., Barnett A., Bernard R., Brown N. J., Byrne J. A., Eckmann P., .. & Weissgerber, T. L. (2022). Is the future of peer review automated?. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), 203. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6
[91] Sivadas E.,& Johnson, M.S. (2015). Relationships between article references and subsequent citations of marketing journal articles. In Revolution in marketing: Market driving changes: Proceedings of the 2006 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 199-205). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
[92] Sivertsen, G. (2017). Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1-6.
[93] Smit, J. P., & Hessels, L. K. (2021). The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: A review of societal impact assessment methods. Research Evaluation, 30(3), 323-335.
[94] StataCorp. (2021). Stata: Release 17
[Statistical software]. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
[95] Stremersch S., Camacho N., Vanneste S., & Verniers I. (2015). Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1), 64-77.
[96] Tahamtan I., Afshar A.S., & Ahamdzadeh K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195-1225.
[97] Talaat, F.M., & Gamel, S.A. (2023). Predicting the impact of no. of authors on no. of citations of research publications based on neural networks. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14, 8499-8508. DOI: 10.1007/s12652-022-03882-1
[98] Thelwall, M. (2024). Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality? Journal of Data and Information Science, 9(2), 1-21. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2024-0013
[99] Thelwall M., Kousha, K, Abdoli M., Stuart E., Makita M., Wilson P., & Levitt J. (2023). Why are co-authored academic articles more cited: Higher quality or larger audience? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(7), 791-810. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24755
[100] Thelwall M., Kousha K., Stuart E., Makita M., Abdoli M., Wilson P., & Levitt J.M. (2023). Does the perceived quality of interdisciplinary research vary between fields? Journal of Documentation, 79(6), 1514-1531. DOI: 10.1108/JD-01-2023-0012
[101] Traag, V.A. (2021). Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 496-504.
[102] Uhly K. M., Visser L. M., & Zippel K. S. (2015). Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 760-782. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1072151
[103] van Lent M., Overbeke J., & Out H.J. (2014). Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e104846.
[104] Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
[105] Waltman L., Kaltenbrunner W., Pinfield S., & Woods, H.B. (2023). How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 334-347.
[106] Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851-872. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9
[107] Wang D., Song C., & Barabási A. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127-132. DOI: 10.1126/science.1237825
[108] Wang J., Thijs B., & Glänzel W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.
[109] Wang X., Dworkin J.D., Zhou D., Stiso J., Falk E.B., Bassett D.S., & Lydon-Staley D.M. (2021). Gendered citation practices in the field of communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 134-153.
[110] Wang X., Liu C., Mao W., & Fang Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555-564. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0
[111] Wilsdon, J. (2016). The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.
[112] Wu T., He S., Liu J., Sun S., Liu K., Han Q. L., & Tang Y. (2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122-1136.
[113] Wuchty S., Jones B. F., & Uzzi B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039.
[114] Xie J., Gong K., Cheng Y., & Ke Q. (2019). The correlation between paper length and citations: A meta-analysis. Scientometrics, 118(3), 763-786.
[115] Yegros-Yegros A., Rafols I., & D'Este P. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10(8). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135095
[116] Yu X., Meng Z., Qin D., Shen C., & Hua F. (2022). The long-term influence of open access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis. Journal of Dentistry, 119, 104067. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104067.
[117] Zhao, X., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Reviewer assignment algorithms for peer review automation: A survey. Information Processing & Management, 59(5), 103028.
[118] Zimmer A., Krimmer H., & Stallmann F. (2006). Winners among losers: Zur feminisierung der Deutschen universitäten [Winners among losers: On the feminization of German universities]. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 28(4), 30-56.
