Correlation Between the Number of Authors and Citation Indicators in Iranian Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Articles in Medical Sciences Indexed in Web of Science
Journal of Medical Library and Information Science,
Vol. 6 No. 6 (2025),
5 April 2025
,
Page 1-11
https://doi.org/10.22037/jmlis.v6i.48420
Abstract
Introduction: Conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses necessitates scientific collaboration. There appears to be a correlation between the number of authors and the number of citations. This study explores the relationship between the number of authors and the citation metrics of Iranian systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the medical sciences field.
Methods: This study is correlational in nature. It examines a research population consisting of 5,231 Iranian articles focused on systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the medical sciences. These articles were published between 2011 and 2020 and are indexed in the Web of Science database. The articles were identified using relevant keywords related to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the advanced search section, utilizing the TS tag. The evidence was sourced from Articles and Reviews. The analysis utilized SPSS software version 29, employing descriptive statistics along with the Shapiro-Wilk and Spearman tests.
Results: Most articles analyzed (62.7%) had between three and six authors. The peak average number of authors occurred in 2014, reaching 12.4 per article. A growing trend is visible in terms of average citations based on the age of the articles. The average number of authors per article does not correlate significantly with the citation indicators examined in the article.
Conclusion: The primary trend observed in the articles examined was a shift towards increased scientific collaboration. While no significant correlation was observed between the average number of authors and citation indices, the overall findings suggest that more authors tend to be linked with a higher number of citations.
- Systematic review
- Meta-analysis
- Authorship characteristics
- Citation indicators
- Web of Science
- Scientific collaborations
- Medical sciences
How to Cite
References
Baskerville NB, Liddy C, Hogg W. Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(1):63–74. doi: 10.1370/afm.1312
Patole S. Systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and evidence-based medicine. In: Principles and Practice of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2021. p. 1–10. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-71921-0_1
Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.109934
Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016;21(4):125–7. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401
Impellizzeri FM, Bizzini M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: a primer. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(5):493–503. PMID: 23091781
Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018/04/02. 2018;71(2):103–12. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103
Rudnicka AR, Owen CG. An introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health care. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012 May;32(3):174-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00901.x
About us | Cochrane [Internet]. [cited 2025 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.cochrane.org/about-us
National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD). Cochrane Iran. [Internet]. [cited 2024 Agust 17]. Available from: https://iran.cochrane.org/
Tahamtan I, Safipour Afshar A, Ahamdzadeh K. Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics. 2016;107:1195–225. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2
Pacheco RL, Riera R, Santos GM, Martins Sá KM, Peres Bomfim LG, da Silva GR, et al. Many systematic reviews with a single author are indexed in PubMed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:124–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.007
Puljak L. If there is only one author or only one database was searched, a study should not be called a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:4-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.002
Phillips V, Barker E. Systematic reviews: Structure, form and content. J Perioper Pract. 2021;31(9):349–53. doi: 10.1177/1750458921994693
Cumpston M., Flemyng E. Planning a Cochrane Review. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ WV., ed. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. version 6.5 Cochrane [Internet]; 2024. [cited 2025 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-ii
Shahbodaghi A, Shekofteh M. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Articles of Iran Indexed in Scopus: Scientometric Indicators and Authorship Characteristics. Payavard Salamat [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2025 Aug 9]; 17(6):518–30. Available from: http://payavard.tums.ac.ir/article-1-7603-en.html. [in Persian].
Talaat FM, Gamel SA. Predicting the impact of no. of authors on no. of citations of research publications based on neural networks. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. 2023;14(7):8499–508. doi:10.1007/s12652-022-03882-1
Soheili F, Khasseh AA, Mokhtari H, Sadeghi M. Factors affecting the number of citations: A mixed method study. J Scientometr Res. 2022;11(1):1–14. doi: 10.5530/jscires.11.1.1
Abramo G, D’Angelo CA. The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. J Informetr. 2015;9(4):746–61. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.003
Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science (80- ). 2007;316(5827):1036–9. doi: 10.1126/science.1136099
Jaksic C, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger T. In health research publications, the number of authors is strongly associated with collective self-citations but less so with citations by others. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02037-w
Hariri N, Maryam S. The scientific map of medicine in Iran: Category co-citation analysis. Malaysian J Libr Inf Sci [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2025 Aug 9];18(2):79–94. Available from: https://mjlis.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/1870
Wu L, Wang D, Evans JA. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 2019;566(7744):378–82. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9
Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J Informetr [Internet]. 2016;10(2):365–91.doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
Goddiksen MP, Johansen MW, Armond AC, Clavien C, Hogan L, Kovács N, et al. “The person in power told me to”-European PhD students’ perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0280018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280018
Wilson KJ, Mitchel A. Activity for CUREs to increase student understanding and application of responsible authorship and publication practices. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2024;25(2):e0000924. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00009-24
Morreim EH, Winer JC. Guest authorship as research misconduct: definitions and possible solutions. BMJ Evidence-Based Med. 2023;28(1):1–4. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111826
Picciariello A, Dezi A, Altomare DF. Undeserved authorship in surgical research: an underestimated bias with potential side effects on academic careers. Updates Surg. 2023;75(7):1807–10. doi: 10.1007/s13304-023-01581-w
Smith E, Williams-Jones B, Master Z, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Paul-Hus A, et al. Researchers’ Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26(4):1995–2022. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3
Yang Y, Tian TY, Woodruff TK, Jones BF, Uzzi B. Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2022;119(36):e2200841119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2200841119
- Abstract Viewed: 179 times
- e72 (PDF) Downloaded: 104 times
