Differences in citations between assessment and mapping bibliometrics articles on management

This study examines the relationship between the type of bibliometric paper in the field of management (mapping vs. assessment) and its subsequent citation impact, while controlling for collaboration, documen type, and paper length. Using a negative binomial regression model, our findings highlight significant associations among these variables. Notably, assessment papers receive fewer citations than mapping papers, and co-authored papers receive more citations than their single-authored counterparts. Additionally, articles attract fewer citations than reviews, while longer papers tend to receive more citations. To mitigate selection bias, propensity score matching was conducted, confirming the robustness of the relationship between paper type and citation impact in a balanced dataset. The scholarly implications include more informed publication strategies and research design choices. While certain limitations exist, these results open avenues for future research, spanning longitudinal analyses, qualitative explorations, and multidisciplinary investigations, thus advancing the comprehension of factors influencing citation impact in scholarly literature.