IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i1d10.1007_s11192-023-04881-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of citation impact between pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers: the case of Best Paper Awards recipients at computer science conferences

Author

Listed:
  • Yongzhen Wang

    (Dalian University of Technology
    Dalian University of Technology)

Abstract

This paper presents a preliminary comparison of citation impact between two types of Best Paper Awards recipients: pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers. Two hundred and ninety-nine pairs of pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers from 15 highly prestigious computer science conferences spanning more than two decades were gathered for empirical analysis. Each pair was published in the same proceedings, and their citation information was collected within a 10-year period after their formal publication. A series of pairwise comparisons were performed in order to unbiasedly uncover their differences in citation counts (i.e., a good proxy for citation impact), as well as in citation speed, citation diversity, and citation location distributions (i.e., three characteristic properties of citation impact). The empirical results demonstrate that in computer science, the post-publication peer-selected best papers receive significantly more citations than their pre-publication counterparts, with an estimated probability of up to 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74 ~ 0.83). Meanwhile, they tend to accumulate their citations more quickly in the later (versus earlier) stages—they can scarcely be fast-aging papers, and their accumulated citations tend to cover a broader scope of academic disciplines. Overall, however, the pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers have very similar citation location distributions. Both of them are most frequently cited in the Background sections, followed by the Methods sections, and finally the Results sections. In addition, the citation impact superiority of the post-publication peer-selected best papers remains consistent across different fields of research and over a long period of time, from 1997 to 2022.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongzhen Wang, 2024. "Comparison of citation impact between pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers: the case of Best Paper Awards recipients at computer science conferences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 641-662, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04881-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04881-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04881-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-023-04881-5?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Vrettas & Mark Sanderson, 2015. "Conferences versus journals in computer science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2674-2684, December.
    2. Franklin G. Mixon & Benno Torgler & Kamal P. Upadhyaya, 2022. "Committees or Markets? An Exploratory Analysis of Best Paper Awards in Economics," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Coupé, Tom, 2013. "Peer review versus citations – An analysis of best paper prizes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 295-301.
    4. Ching Jin & Yifang Ma & Brian Uzzi, 2021. "Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predictive power of conference-related factors on citation rates of conference papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 281-304, January.
    6. Jian Wang, 2013. "Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 851-872, March.
    7. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Correction to: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 907-908, January.
    8. Peng Zhang & Peiling Wang & Qiang Wu, 2018. "How are the best JASIST papers cited?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(6), pages 857-860, June.
    9. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    10. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    11. Terrence A. Brooks, 2000. "How good are the best papers of JASIS?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(5), pages 485-486.
    12. Linhong Xu & Kun Ding & Yuan Lin & Chunbo Zhang, 2023. "Does citation polarity help evaluate the quality of academic papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4065-4087, July.
    13. Omar Mubin & Dhaval Tejlavwala & Mudassar Arsalan & Muneeb Ahmad & Simeon Simoff, 2018. "An assessment into the characteristics of award winning papers at CHI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1181-1201, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zhang, Yang & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Havlin, Shlomo, 2024. "Delayed citation impact of interdisciplinary research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    2. Mike Thelwall, 2023. "Are successful co-authors more important than first authors for publishing academic journal articles?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2211-2232, April.
    3. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Alternative medicines worth researching? Citation analyses of acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, and osteopathy 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8731-8747, October.
    4. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    5. Wu, Dengsheng & Wang, Shuwen & Xu, Weixuan & Li, Jianping, 2024. "Do conference-journal articles receive more citations? A case study in physics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    6. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    7. Mehdi Toloo & Rouhollah Khodabandelou & Amar Oukil, 2022. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Fractional Programming (1965–2020)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, May.
    8. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    9. Basheer Kalash & Sarah Guillou & Lionel Nesta & Michele Pezzoni, 2024. "Does Lab Funding Matter for the Technological Application of Scientific Research? An Empirical Analysis of French Labs," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 153, pages 39-76.
    10. Mike Thelwall & Stephen Pinfield, 2024. "The accuracy of field classifications for journals in Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 1097-1117, February.
    11. Anting Wang & Mohd Nizam Osman & Megat Al-Imran Yasin & Nurul Ain Mohd Hasan & Ying Cui, 2024. "Tracing Evolution and Communication Dynamics in Chinese Independent Documentary Films (2012-2022): A Systematic Review of Genre, Censorship, Culture, and Distribution," Studies in Media and Communication, Redfame publishing, vol. 12(1), pages 368-381, March.
    12. Elena Andriollo & Alberto Caimo & Laura Secco & Elena Pisani, 2021. "Collaborations in Environmental Initiatives for an Effective “Adaptive Governance” of Social–Ecological Systems: What Existing Literature Suggests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-29, July.
    13. repec:dar:wpaper:132320 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Núria Bautista-Puig, 2024. "Research assessment under debate: disentangling the interest around the DORA declaration on Twitter," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 537-559, January.
    15. Frode Eika Sandnes, 2025. "Are there too many papers by the same authors within the same conference proceedings? Norms and extremities within the field of human–computer interaction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1659-1699, March.
    16. Kelly Gerakoudi-Ventouri, 2022. "Review of studies of blockchain technology effects on the shipping industry," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. Safoora Pitsi & Jon Billsberry & Mary Barrett, 2024. "A Bibliometric Review of Research on Intelligence in Leadership Studies," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 13(5), pages 528-541, October.
    18. Yang Ding & Fernando Moreira, 2025. "Funding and productivity: Does winning grants affect the scientific productivity of recipients? Evidence from the social sciences and economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1831-1870, March.
    19. DIODATO Dario, 2024. "Handbook of Economic Complexity for Policy," JRC Research Reports JRC138666, Joint Research Centre.
    20. Toluwase Asubiaro & Sodiq Onaolapo & David Mills, 2024. "Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1469-1491, March.
    21. Alejandro Valencia-Arias & Juana Ramírez Dávila & Wilmer Londoño-Celis & Lucia Palacios-Moya & Julio Leyrer Hernández & Erica Agudelo-Ceballos & Hernán Uribe-Bedoya, 2024. "Research Trends in the Use of the Internet of Things in Sustainability Practices: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.

    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:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04881-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.