Impact and structural features of meta-analytical studies, standard articles and reviews in psychology: Similarities and differences

Meta-analysis refers to the statistical methods used in research synthesis for combining and integrating results from individual studies. In this regard meta-analytical studies share with narrative reviews the goal of synthesizing the scientific literature on a particular topic, while as in the case of standard articles they present new results. This study aims to identify the potential similarities and differences between meta-analytical studies, reviews and standard articles as regards their impact and structural features in the field of psychology. To this end a random sample of 335 examples of each type of document were selected from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. The results showed that meta-analytical studies receive more citations than do both reviews and standard articles. All three types of documents showed a similar pattern in terms of institutional collaboration, while reviews and meta-analytical studies had a similar number of authors per document. However, reviews had a greater number of references and pages than did meta-analytical studies. The implications of these results for the scientific community are discussed.

► Impact and structural features are compared among meta-analysis, reviews and standard articles. ► Meta-analysis receives more citation rates than standard articles and reviews. ► Meta-analysis classified as reviews received as many citations as those classified as articles. ► Reviews showed higher number of references and pages compared to meta-analysis. ► The three types of documents showed a similar international collaboration pattern.