Paper detail

Causal Impact of Web Browsing and Other Factors on Research Publications

In this paper, we study the causal impact of the web-search activity on the research publication. We considered observational prospective study design, where research activity of 267 scientists is being studied. We considered the Poisson and negative binomial regression model for our analysis. Based on the Akaike's Model selection criterion, we found the negative binomial regression performs better than the Poisson regression. Detailed analysis indicates that the higher web-search activity of 2016 related to the sci-indexed website has a positive significant impact on the research publication of 2017. We observed that unique collaborations of 2016 and web-search activity of 2016 have a non-linear but significant positive impact on the research publication of 2017. What-if analysis indicates the high web browsing activity leads to more number of the publication. However, interestingly we see a scientist with low web activity can be as productive as others if her/his maximum hits are the sci-indexed journal. That is if the scientist uses web browsing only for research-related activity, then she/he can be equally productive even if her/his web activity is lower than fellow scientists.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.