Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35607645›Full record

ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)2022

COVID-19 citation pandemic within the psychological knowledge domain.

Dejan Pajić

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. How Much Do We Care about Teacher Burnout during the Pandemic: A Bibliometric Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Dejan PajićFaculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0002-6417-5382

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Presented study explores the knowledge domain of psychological research published in 2020 and 2021. Metadata from 156,942 psychology papers available in Scopus were analyzed using citation analysis and bibliographic mapping techniques. Having in mind the ubiquity of the COVID-19 pandemic and the numerous ways it has affected people's lives, the fact that COVID-19-related papers represent only 2% to 7% of the total academic production in psychology may seem rather low. However, these papers have attracted much more attention from the public than non-COVID papers. They were also cited two to eight times more frequently, depending on the measure used, and account for 16% to 19% of total citations to psychology papers. Results show that early-stage researchers and those who had fewer articles in Scopus have benefited more from publishing COVID papers. They have managed to boost their average citation rates to the level of their colleagues who were much longer active and previously had higher citedness. Results indicate that the authors citing behavior largely follows the cumulative advantage pattern. Psychological research in general is mainly focused on mental health, anxiety, depression, and stress. This trend is even more fostered due to the pandemic since some of these topics are often analyzed as typical emotional reactions to COVID-19. Other relevant issues are also very well covered, except for the question how scientific results are communicated to the public. The role of "hot" papers was elaborated from the perspective of research evaluation practice. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03146-3.

Indexed as

Bibliometric mappingCitation analysisCOVID-19Psychological researchResearch evaluation

Identifiers

PMID35607645
PMCPMC9117083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.