Measuring the influence of non-scientific features on citations

If this title is funny, will you cite me? Citation impacts of humour and other features of article titles in ecology and evolution

Titles of scientific papers play a key role in their discovery, and “good” titles engage and recruit readers. Humour is a particularly interesting aspect of title construction, but little is known about whether funny titles boost or limit paper impact. We used a panel of scorers to assess title humour for 2439 papers in ecology and evolution, and measured associations between humour and subsequent citation (self-citation and citation by others). Papers with funnier titles were cited less, but this appears to reflect confounding with paper importance: self-citation data suggest that authors give funnier titles to papers they consider less important. After correction for this, papers with funny titles have significantly higher citation rates ( P < 2.2 × 10−16; roughly doubling from lowest to highest humour score)—suggesting that humour recruits readers. We also examined associations between citation rates and other features of titles. Inclusion of acronyms and taxonomic names was associated with lower citation rates, while assertive-statement phrasing and presence of colons, question marks, and political regions were associated with somewhat higher citation rates. Title length had no effect on citation. Our results suggest that scientists can use creativity with titles without having their work condemned to obscurity.

Starstruck by journal prestige and citation counts? On students’ bias and perceptions of trustworthiness according to clues in publication references

Research is becoming increasingly accessible to the public via open access publications, researchers’ social media postings, outreach activities, and popular disseminations. A healthy research discourse is typified by debates, disagreements, and diverging views. Consequently, readers may rely on the information available, such as publication reference attributes and bibliometric markers, to resolve conflicts. Yet, critical voices have warned about the uncritical and one-sided use of such information to assess research. In this study we wanted to get insight into how individuals without research training place trust in research based on clues present in publication references. A questionnaire was designed to probe respondents’ perceptions of six publication attributes. A total of 148 students responded to the questionnaire of which 118 were undergraduate students (with limited experience and knowledge of research) and 27 were graduate students (with some knowledge and experience of research). The results showed that the respondents were mostly influenced by the number of citations and the recency of publication, while author names, publication type, and publication origin were less influential. There were few differences between undergraduate and graduate students, with the exception that undergraduate students more strongly favoured publications with multiple authors over publications with single authors. We discuss possible implications for teachers that incorporate research articles in their curriculum.