ArticleJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society)2016
Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals.
Article in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moment Estimation in Paired Comparison Models with a Growing Number of Subjects.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- RaCE: A rank-clustering estimation method for network meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Bayesian Rank-Clustering.Psychometrika · 2025Article
- Bibliometric study ofBioImpacts : BI · 2025Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on English Football Premier League: Analyzing rankings and home advantage using extended Bradley-Terry models.PloS one · 2025Article
- Statistics in everyone's backyard: An impact study via citation network analysis.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation ofRoyal Society open science · 2017Article
- Sparse graphs using exchangeable random measures.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rankings of scholarly journals based on citation data are often met with scepticism by the scientific community. Part of the scepticism is due to disparity between the common perception of journals' prestige and their ranking based on citation counts. A more serious concern is the inappropriate use of journal rankings to evaluate the scientific influence of researchers. The paper focuses on analysis of the table of cross-citations among a selection of statistics journals. Data are collected from the
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.