IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The alleged citation advantage of video abstracts may be a matter of self-citations and self-selection bias. Comment on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts” by Zong et al


  • Sergio Copiello

    () (IUAV University of Venice)


The paper authored by Zong et al. (Scientometrics, 2019. claims that equipping articles with a video abstract provides them a citation advantage. Here I argue that the study above does not consider two potential confounding factors, namely, the role played by self-citations as well as by the self-selection bias. Author self-citations push the citation premium of the articles analyzed in the study referenced above, thus the net effect of video abstracts is lower than expected. What is more, articles with a video abstract seem to associate with higher citations in comparison to their counterparts without the video companion due to the self-selection bias. Namely, authors may be prone to include a video abstract in the articles they believe are of outstanding quality and best representative of their research activities. All this suggests that the alleged citation advantage of video abstracts is, at least, of doubtful occurrence.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Copiello, 2020. "The alleged citation advantage of video abstracts may be a matter of self-citations and self-selection bias. Comment on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts” by Zong et al," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 751-757, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03173-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03173-1

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Jason Priem & Paul Groth & Dario Taraborelli, 2012. "The Altmetrics Collection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-2, November.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Journal impact measures in bibliometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 171-193, February.
    3. Gaulé, Patrick & Maystre, Nicolas, 2011. "Getting cited: Does open access help?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1332-1338.
      • Patrick Gaulé & Nicolas Maystre, 2008. "Getting cited: does open access help?," CEMI Working Papers cemi-workingpaper-2008-00, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Collège du Management de la Technologie, Management of Technology and Entrepreneurship Institute, Chaire en Economie et Management de l'Innovation.
    4. Éric Archambault & Vincent Larivière, 2009. "History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 635-649, June.
    5. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico & Mastrogiacomo, Luca, 2016. "The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 174-182.
    6. Gualberto Buela-Casal & Izabela Zych, 2012. "What do the scientists think about the impact factor?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 281-292, August.
    7. Craig, Iain D. & Plume, Andrew M. & McVeigh, Marie E. & Pringle, James & Amin, Mayur, 2007. "Do open access articles have greater citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 239-248.
    8. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    9. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Evaluating altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1131-1143, February.
    10. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1231-1240, June.
    11. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico & Mastrogiacomo, Luca, 2016. "Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 933-953.
    12. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    13. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1123-1144, June.
    14. Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad & Leslie Carr, 2006. "Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 1060-1072, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:spr:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03173-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.