Abstract
This article aims to quantitatively assess how different formal aspects – beyond the relevance and quality of a study – influence how often a scientific paper is cited. As a case study, I retrieved all publications co-authored by myself from the Scopus database, of which 174 could be used for regression modelling. The citation impact was quantified as Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI), which is the citation number normalised by year, subject area and article type. I examined 13 easily accessible numeric and binary predictor variables, including the Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), open access, special feature, number of authors, length of article and title, as well as formal aspects of the title. In the minimal adequate model, these formal aspects explained 50.2% of the variance in FWCI, with the SNIP alone explaining only 26.8%. Other strong positive predictors were title brevity, article length, special feature and the use of a colon in the title. By contrast, open access and the formulation of titles as factual statements did not have a significant effect. For authors who wish to make their articles more impactful, the main recommendation is to shorten the title and to disregard using factual statements that make the title longer.
Abbreviations: FWCI = Field-weighted Citation Impact; JIF = Journal Impact Factor; OA = open access; SNIP = Source Normalized Impact per Paper: VCS = Vegetation Classification and Survey.