Jan 13, 2016

Comparing the Citation Performance of PNAS Papers by Submission Track

BioRxiv : the Preprint Server for Biology
Philip M Davis

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.

  • References
  • Citations

References

  • We're still populating references for this paper, please check back later.
  • References
  • Citations

Citations

  • This paper may not have been cited yet.

Mentioned in this Paper

Regulatory Submission
Peptide Nucleic Acids
Regression Analysis
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
Entity - Organization
Editorial Policies

About this Paper

Related Feeds

BioRxiv & MedRxiv Preprints

BioRxiv and MedRxiv are the preprint servers for biology and health sciences respectively, operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Here are the latest preprint articles (which are not peer-reviewed) from BioRxiv and MedRxiv.

Related Papers

The Behavioral and Brain Sciences
J van Brakel
The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society
G Rosenthal
The New England Journal of Medicine
F J Ingelfinger
© 2020 Meta ULC. All rights reserved