Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the original publication [...].

Explains how to find and evaluate sources for research projects and the importance of providing citations for reference sources.

In this communication, the calls for standardizing citation styles are discussed. Instead of standardizing citation style, I consider efforts to introduce style-free references to be more beneficial to authors.

When correcting the reference citations of this paper during the production process, most sources became wrongly related to the authors of other references. These errors in the paper’s bibliographical citations were caused by Springer Nature.

To systematically map the factors associated with citation rates, to categorize the types of studies evaluating these factors, and to obtain an overall status of citation bias in scientific health literature. A scoping review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping review extension checklist. Four electronic databases were searched, and the reference-lists of all included articles were screened. Empirical meta-research studies reporting any source of predictors of citation rates and/or citation bias within health care were included. Data are presented by descriptive statistics such as frequencies, portions, and percentages. A total of 165 studies were included. Fifty-four distinct factors of citation rates were evaluated in 786 quantitative analyses. Regardless of using the same basic methodological approach to calculate citation rate, 78 studies (48%) aimed to examined citation bias, whereas 79 studies (48%) aimed to optimizing article characteristics to enhance authors’ own citation rates. The remaining seven studies (4%) analyzed infrastructural characteristics at publication level to make all studies more accessible. Seventy-nine of the 165 included studies (48%) explicitly recommended modifying paper characteristics—such as title length or author count—to boost citations rather than prioritizing scientific contribution. Such recommendations may conflict with principles of scientific integrity, which emphasize relevance and methodological rigor over strategic citation practices. Given the high proportion of analyses identifying a significant increase in citation rates, publication bias cannot be ruled out. Why was the study done? Within scientific research, it is important to cite previous research. This is done for specific reasons, including crediting earlier authors and providing a credible and trustworthy background for conducting the study. However, findings suggest that citations are not always chosen for their intended purpose. This is known as citation bias. What did the researchers do? The researchers searched for all existing studies evaluating predictors of citation rate, ie, how often is a specific study referred to by other researchers. They systematically mapped these studies to find out both the level of citation bias and the types of citation bias present in scientific health literature. To find these studies, the researchers searched four electronic databases and screened the reference lists of all included studies to be sure to include as many studies as possible. What did the researchers find? The researchers found a total of 165 studies that evaluated predictors of citation rate in no less than 786 analyses. However, the researchers found that the studies differed in the way they evaluated predictors of citation rate, as 78 studies (48%) evaluated citation bias, meaning if researchers referred to earlier studies in a nonscientific way, whereas 79 studies (48%) evaluated predictors of citation rate to identify ways to increase authors' own citation rates. The remaining seven studies (4%) wanted to find characteristics that could make the studies more accessible. What do the findings mean? The study identified a very large number of predictors of citation rate being evaluated and even indicating risk of citation bias. Furthermore, the study found that 48% of the papers recommended changing things like title length or number of authors to get more citations, instead of focusing on the actual scientific contribution. These recommendations might, however, be in conflict with scientific principles and honesty. [Display omitted] Key findings•165 meta-research studies identified 54 distinct predictors of citation rates.•Over half of all analyses found factors associated with increased citation rates.•Most of these were unrelated to scientific quality or relevance.•Half of included studies recommended modifying article to increase citation.What this adds to what is known?•Citations often shaped by modifiable characteristics rather than scientific merit.•The most comprehensive of citation rate in health research.•Questionable recommendations for “citation boosting” in several studies.What is the implication and what should change now?•Citation rates should not be treated uncritically as indicators of research quality.•Researchers should avoid strategic citation practices.•Researchers should adopt systematic and transparent methods when citing.•Systematic reviews/meta-analyses to quantify the extent of citation bias is needed.•Meta-research evaluating consequences of citation bias is needed.

This paper complements a recent study by Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro (2004) that investigated the intellectual structure of the strategic management field through co-citation analysis. By using authors as the units of analysis and incorporating all the citations that are included in the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index, we trace the evolution of the intellectual structure of the strategic management field during the period 1980-2000. Using a variety of data analytic techniques such as multidimensional scaling, factor analysis, and Pathfinder analysis, we (1) delineate the subfields that constitute the intellectual structure of strategic management; (2) determine the relationships between the subfields; (3) identify authors who play a pivotal role in bridging two or more conceptual domains of research; and (4) graphically map the intellectual structure in two-dimensional space in order to visualize spatial distances between intellectual themes. The analysis provides insights about the influence of individual authors as well as changes in their influence over time.