IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0176151.html

Is bilingualism losing its advantage? A bibliometric approach

Author

Listed:
  • Victor A Sanchez-Azanza
  • Raúl López-Penadés
  • Lucía Buil-Legaz
  • Eva Aguilar-Mediavilla
  • Daniel Adrover-Roig

Abstract

This study uses several bibliometric indices to explore the temporal course of publication trends regarding the bilingual advantage in executive control over a ten-year window. These indices include the number of published papers, numbers of citations, and the journal impact factor. According to the information available in their abstracts, studies were classified into one of four categories: supporting, ambiguous towards, not mentioning, or challenging the bilingual advantage. Results show that the number of papers challenging the bilingual advantage increased notably in 2014 and 2015. Both the average impact factor and the accumulated citations as of June 2016 were equivalent between categories. However, of the studies published in 2014, those that challenge the bilingual advantage accumulated more citations in June 2016 than those supporting it. Our findings offer evidence-based bibliometric information about the current state of the literature and suggest a change in publication trends regarding the literature on the bilingual advantage.

Suggested Citation

  • Victor A Sanchez-Azanza & Raúl López-Penadés & Lucía Buil-Legaz & Eva Aguilar-Mediavilla & Daniel Adrover-Roig, 2017. "Is bilingualism losing its advantage? A bibliometric approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176151
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176151&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0176151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Pautasso, 2010. "Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 193-202, October.
    2. Jonathan Schooler, 2011. "Unpublished results hide the decline effect," Nature, Nature, vol. 470(7335), pages 437-437, February.
    3. Seden Can & Erkan Karabacak & Jingjing Qin, 2016. "Structure of Moves in Research Article Abstracts in Applied Linguistics," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-16, July.
    4. repec:ack:journl:y::id:161 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clara Selva & Aniol Recordà, 2018. "Spanish youth is emigrating: A bibliometric approach to the media coverage," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Yong S. Nyam & Julius H. Kotir & Andries J. Jordaan & Abiodun A. Ogundeji & Adetoso A. Adetoro & Israel R. Orimoloye, 2020. "Towards Understanding and Sustaining Natural Resource Systems through the Systems Perspective: A Systematic Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-20, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2013. "Positive results receive more citations, but only in some disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 701-709, February.
    2. Dimos, Christos & Pugh, Geoff & Hisarciklilar, Mehtap & Talam, Ema & Jackson, Ian, 2022. "The relative effectiveness of R&D tax credits and R&D subsidies: A comparative meta-regression analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    3. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    4. Vieira, Valter Afonso & Rafael, Diego Nogueira & Agnihotri, Raj, 2022. "Augmented reality generalizations: A meta-analytical review on consumer-related outcomes and the mediating role of hedonic and utilitarian values," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 170-184.
    5. Fanelli, Daniele, 2020. "Metascientific reproducibility patterns revealed by informatic measure of knowledge," MetaArXiv 5vnhj, Center for Open Science.
    6. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Replication in experimental economics: A historical and quantitative approach focused on public good game experiments," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01651080, HAL.
    7. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    8. repec:plo:pcbi00:1003149 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Johannes Auer & Dominik Papies, 2020. "Cross-price elasticities and their determinants: a meta-analysis and new empirical generalizations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 584-605, May.
    10. Ho Yoong Wei & Abu Bakar Razali & Arshad Abd Samad, 2022. "Writing Abstracts for Research Articles: Towards a Framework for Move Structure of Abstracts," World Journal of English Language, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(6), pages 492-492, September.
    11. Shaoliang Xie, 2020. "Multidimensional analysis of Master thesis abstracts: a diachronic perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 861-881, May.
    12. Lynch, John G. & Bradlow, Eric T. & Huber, Joel C. & Lehmann, Donald R., 2015. "Reflections on the replication corner: In praise of conceptual replications," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 333-342.
    13. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    14. Frank Renkewitz & Heather M. Fuchs & Susann Fiedler, 2011. "Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 870-881, December.
    15. Christine R Harris & Noriko Coburn & Doug Rohrer & Harold Pashler, 2013. "Two Failures to Replicate High-Performance-Goal Priming Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.
    16. Marco Pautasso, 2012. "Publication Growth in Biological Sub-Fields: Patterns, Predictability and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-14, November.
    17. Daniele Fanelli & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    18. Christopher Schlaegel & Michael Koenig, 2014. "Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intent: A Meta–Analytic Test and Integration of Competing Models," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(2), pages 291-332, March.
    19. Laura Smarandescu & Terence Shimp, 2015. "Drink coca-cola, eat popcorn, and choose powerade: testing the limits of subliminal persuasion," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 715-726, December.
    20. Katharina Alter & Juliette Jacquemont & Joachim Claudet & María E. Lattuca & María E. Barrantes & Stefano Marras & Patricio H. Manríquez & Claudio P. González & Daniel A. Fernández & Myron A. Peck & C, 2024. "Hidden impacts of ocean warming and acidification on biological responses of marine animals revealed through meta-analysis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    21. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.