Skip to main content

Table 2 Univariate and multivariate analyses on potential determinants of the likelihood of being cited

From: Selective citation in scientific literature on the human health effects of bisphenol A

Variable

Categories

Crude OR

Adjusted OR*

Study outcome

 Significance

Yes vs no

1.57 (1.28–1.92)

1.48 (1.21–1.80)

 Authors’ conclusion

In line vs not in line with hypothesis

1.57 (1.29–1.92)

1.65 (1.34–2.03)

Content-related determinants

 Study design

Narrative review

1.00 (ref)

 

Cohort study

1.61 (1.26–2.07)

 

Cross-sectional study

2.00 (1.64–2.44)

 

Case-control study

1.08 (0.84–1.38)

 

Systematic review

1.36 (0.99–1.87)

 

 Sample size **

< 168

1 (ref)

1.00 (ref)

168–430

1.04 (0.88–1.22)

1.00 (0.85–1.17)

> 430

1.62 (1.27–2.05)

1.39 (1.12–1.74)

 Title of publication

Suggestive title vs not suggestive title

1.25 (1.07–1.45)

1.16 (1.00–1.35)

Not content-related determinants

 Number of affiliations**

< 3

1.00 (ref)

1.00 (ref)

3–5

1.46 (1.22–1.75)

1.27 (1.04–1.56)

> 5

1.50 (1.24–1.82)

1.32 (1.06–1.65)

 Journal Impact Factor**

< 2.8

1.00 (ref)

1.00 (Ref)

2.8–4.6

1.21 (1.07–1.36)

1.08 (0.96–1.22)

> 4.6

1.41 (1.22–1.63)

1.22 (1.06–1.41)

 Funding source

For-profit vs not-for-profit ***

NA

NA

Not reported vs reported

0.41 (0.31–0.55)

0.74 (0.43–1.28)

 Number of references**

< 46

1.00(ref)

1.00 (ref)

46–58

1.24 (1.08–1.42)

1.10 (0.95–1.26)

> 58

0.75 (0.63–0.89)

0.78 (0.65–0.92)

Author-related determinants

 Gender of corresponding author

Male vs Female

1.00 (0.89–1.11)

0.97 (0.86–1.09)

 Affiliation of corresponding author

Private vs public sector

0.94 (0.75–1.17)

1.31 (0.57–3.01)

 Authority of the authors**

< 3

1.00 (ref)

1.00 (ref)

3–26

2.21 (1.84–2.66)

2.16 (1.78–2.63)

> 26

3.20 (2.59–3.96)

3.32 (2.64–4.18)

 Self-citation

Yes vs no

5.14 (3.88–6.81)

5.16 (3.81–6.99)

  1. *Adjusted model is adjusted for study design
  2. **Continuous variables were categorized based on tertiles
  3. ***None of the publications was funded solely by for-profit organizations, therefore this analysis was not possible