Any publicity is better than none: newspaper coverage increases citations, in the UK more than in Italy
Any publicity is better than none: newspaper coverage increases citations, in the UK more than in Italy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-012-0925-0
复制
发表时间：
2013-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Fanelli, Daniele
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fanelli, Daniele
被大众媒体报道的研究的引用优势是一个看似合理的现象，但研究很少。之前在美国进行的两项研究发现，媒体报道和引用之间存在正相关关系。其中只有一项研究能够得出结论，这种相关性是由真实的“宣传效应”引起的，而不是由媒体突出那些本质上注定会产生更大科学影响的论文引起的（称为“专项拨款”假说）。这项研究通过比较2008年和2009年发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》上的研究，以及意大利和英国报纸上刊登的研究，评估了在美国以外的宣传效应的相对重要性。这两个国家的报纸报道了类似的主题范围，并且往往过度报道当地（国家）的研究。与没有出现在任何一家报纸上的研究相比，英国报纸上刊登的研究被引用的次数多了63%，而意大利报纸上的引用次数多了16%。然而，报纸，特别是意大利报纸，引用意大利作者的比例显著增加。对来自英国的引文的等效影响较小，仅具有轻微的显著性。总的来说，附有新闻稿的研究报告没有得到更多的引用。总之，结果表明，宣传效果是最强的英语媒体，而非英语报道主要有当地的影响。这些影响可能是基于引用的研究评估中的一个混杂因素，并可能导致已知影响科学文献的许多偏见。
A citation advantage for research covered by the mass media is a plausible, but poorly studied phenomenon. Two previous studies, both conducted in the United States, found a positive correlation between media reporting and citations. Only one of these studies was able to conclude that the correlation was caused by a real "publicity effect" rather than by the media highlighting papers that are intrinsically destined to have greater scientific impact (called the 'earmark' hypothesis). This study assessed the relative importance of the publicity effect outside the US, by comparing studies published in 2008 and 2009 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that had been featured in newspapers in Italy and the United Kingdom. Newspapers in the two countries covered a similar range of topics, and tended to over-represent local (national) research. Compared to studies not appearing in any of the newspapers considered, those featured in British newspapers had around 63 % more citations, whilst in Italian newspapers 16 %. The proportion of citations from Italian authors, however, was significantly increased by newspapers, particularly by those in Italian. The equivalent effect on citations from the UK was smaller and only marginally significant. Studies accompanied by a press release did not receive, overall, significantly more citations. In sum, results suggest that the publicity effect is strongest for English-speaking media, whilst non-English reporting has mostly a local influence. These effects might represent a confounding factor in citation-based research assessment and might contribute to the many biases known to affect the scientific literature.