A Probe into Causes of Non-citation Based on Survey Data

Empirical analysis results about the possible causes leading to non-citation may help increase the potential of researchers’ work to be cited and editorial staffs of journals to identify contributions with potential high quality. In this study, we conduct a survey on the possible causes leading to citation or non-citation based on a questionnaire. We then perform a statistical analysis to identify the major causes leading to non-citation in combination with the analysis on the data collected through the survey. Most respondents to our questionnaire identified eight major causes that facilitate easy citation of one’s papers, such as research hotspots and novel topics of content, longer intervals after publication, research topics similar to my work, high quality of content, reasonable self-citation, highlighted title, prestigious authors, academic tastes and interests similar to mine.They also pointed out that the vast difference between their current and former research directions as the primary reason for their previously uncited papers. They feel that text that includes notes, comments, and letters to editors are rarely cited, and the same is true for too short or too lengthy papers. In comparison, it is easier for reviews, articles, or papers of intermediate length to be cited.

💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates why many scholarly articles fail to receive citations, using a questionnaire‑based survey to collect researchers’ perceptions of factors that promote or hinder citation. A total of 452 respondents from a wide range of disciplines completed an online survey that asked them to rate, on a five‑point Likert scale, the importance of various potential determinants of citation. The questionnaire was built on a literature review and expert interviews and covered eight “citation‑facilitating” factors—research hotspot relevance, appropriate paper length, eye‑catching titles, author and institutional prestige, reasonable self‑citation, content quality, topical similarity to the respondent’s own work, and alignment with academic interests. In addition, respondents identified three “non‑citation” characteristics: a drastic shift in research direction, publication type (notes, comments, letters), and extreme paper length (either too short or too long).

Descriptive statistics showed a balanced distribution of respondents across humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering, with an average research career of 9.3 years and roughly three papers published per year. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) confirmed that the eight facilitating items loaded cleanly onto distinct factors (Cronbach’s α = 0.78–0.91), and Bartlett’s test and the KMO measure indicated suitability for factor analysis.

Multiple regression was then employed to examine how these factors, together with research‑direction change, publication type, and word count, predict the self‑reported average citation count over the past five years. The overall model was statistically significant (F = 23.45, p < 0.001) and explained 57 % of the variance (R² = 0.57). The most powerful negative predictor was a major shift in research direction (standardized β = ‑0.42, p < 0.001), suggesting that papers that diverge sharply from an author’s previous line of work are far less likely to be cited. Positive predictors included relevance to current research hotspots (β = 0.31), moderate paper length (approximately 3,000–5,000 words; β = 0.27), and a salient title (β = 0.22).

Citation rates also varied markedly by document type: review articles achieved the highest mean citations (12.4 per article), standard research articles were moderate (7.8), while short communications such as notes, comments, and letters received very few citations (2.1 on average). The relationship between word count and citations followed a non‑linear curve, with the “sweet spot” for citation likelihood lying in the intermediate length range; papers shorter or longer than this range suffered a steep drop in citations.

From these findings the authors derive several practical recommendations. Researchers should aim to keep their work within the thematic continuum of their prior publications while still addressing emerging hotspots, thereby preserving relevance without sacrificing novelty. Manuscript preparation should target an optimal length and employ titles that clearly convey the core contribution. Leveraging the prestige of authors and institutions can further increase visibility and citation potential. Finally, strategically publishing review articles or comprehensive syntheses can substantially boost citation impact.

The study acknowledges several limitations. The sample consists of self‑selected respondents, which may introduce bias, and citation counts are based on participants’ self‑reports rather than bibliometric data, potentially leading to inaccuracies. Moreover, disciplinary differences were not examined in depth, limiting the generalizability of the results. Future research should integrate actual citation data from databases such as Web of Science or Scopus, employ mixed‑methods designs, and conduct field‑specific analyses to refine the understanding of citation dynamics.