What Makes an Article be More Cited?

Main Article Content

Wesley Mendes-da-Silva
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5500-4872 orcid


As discussed in a previous editorial (Mendes-Da-Silva, 2020), the rejection of articles is something that we can learn from, and have to live with, since this is part of a researcher’s professional routine. This, however, proceeds from a supposed common objective of business researchers: the publication of our studies and the desire that they be considered relevant to society. In this respect, one of the main ways in which we judge the level of interest in our works is the number of citations that they receive (Garfield, 1955; Lee, Law, & Ladkin, 2014) and their mentions in the media (Pulido, Redondo-Sama, Sordé-Marti, & Flecha, 2018). But what then makes an article more cited (Hall & Page, 2015)?


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Mendes-da-Silva, W. (2020). What Makes an Article be More Cited?. Journal of Contemporary Administration, 24(6), 507-513. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020200167


Bethard, S., & Jurafsky, D. (2010, October). Who should I cite? Learning literature search models from citation behavior. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 19. https://doi.org/10.1145/1871437.1871517
Duflo, E. (2019). Report of the editor: American Economic Review. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109, 612-626. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.109.612
Garcia, D., Gattaz, C., & Gattaz, N. (2019). The relevance of title, abstract and keywords for scientific paper writing. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 23(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190178
Garfield, E. (1955) Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013636
Hall, C. M., & Page, S. J. (2015). Following the impact factor: Utilitarianism or academic compliance? Tourism Management, 51, 309-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.013
Hargens, L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53(1), 139-151. https://doi.org//10.2307/2095739
Jacques, T. S., & Sebire, N. J. (2010). The impact of article titles on citation hits: An analysis of general and specialist medical journals. Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, 1(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1258/shorts.2009.100020
Jacso, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610675816
Kovacs, J. (2013). Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8), 509-512. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100568
Kurtz, M. J., & Henneken, E. A. (2007). Open Access does not increase citations for research articles from The Astrophysical Journal. ArXiv, 0709.0896. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0896
Lee, H. A., Law, R., & Ladkin, A. (2014). What makes an article citable? Current Issues in Tourism, 17(5), 455-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.810611
McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500453053
Martins, H. C. (2020). Checklist evaluation for tutorial-articles: Clean code. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3785747
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2018a). Reconhecimento da contribuição do avaliador anônimo. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(5), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180281
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2018b). Promoção de transparência e impacto da pesquisa em negócios. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(4), 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180210
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2019a). Revisão pelos pares aberta e ciência aberta na comunidade de pesquisa em negócios. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 23(4), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190278
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2019b). Revisão pelos pares aberta e ciência aberta na comunidade de pesquisa em negócios, VIII reunião anual do programa SciELO - Painel alinhamento dos periódicos SciELO Brasil com as boas práticas da ciência aberta. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3572954
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2020). Lições que podem ser aprendidas da rejeição de um artigo. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(4), 369-375. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020200069
Pulido, C. M., Redondo-Sama, G., Sordé-Martí, T., & Flecha, R. (2018). Social impact in social media: A new method to evaluate the social impact of research. PLoS ONE, 13(8), e0203117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117
Rossoni, L. (2018). Editorial: Produtivismo e coautoria cerimonial. Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa, 17(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.21529/RECADM.2018ed2
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474
Yan, R., Tang, J., Liu, X., Shan, D., & Li, X. (2011, October). Citation count prediction: Learning to estimate future citations for literature. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Glasgow Scotland, UK, 20. https://doi.org/10.1145/2063576.2063757