Researchers, journals, and universities want to receive more citations for their scholarly publications. However, a paper citations depend on its quality, visibility and author’s online profile. Research support documents (unpublished papers, white papers, project reports, datasets, software, posters, online resources and teaching materials) can be additional source for increasing the author’s visibility. To enhance research visibility and impact, the full range of scholarly output should be available online on the open access platform. With open access platform, key research findings are made accessible immediately to the scientific community. Therefore, the publicly available research support documents may result in receiving more citations in addition to the published papers. In this paper we conducted a simplified three stages study on the benefits of research support documents publications on open access platform. We also elaborated on approaches of improving your research visibility and impact through these document.

The number of citations that a paper has received is the most commonly used indicator to measure the quality of research. Researchers, journals, and universities want to receive more citations for their scholarly publications to increase their h-index, impact factor, and ranking respectively. In this paper, we tried to analyses the effect of the number of available Google Scholar versions of a paper on citations count. We analyzed 10,162 papers which are published in Scopus database in year 2010 by Malaysian top five universities. Then we developed a software to collect the number of citations and versions of each paper from Google Scholar automatically. The result of spearman correlation coefficient revealed that there is positive significant association between the number of Google Scholar versions of a paper and the number of times a paper has been cited.

How much is the h-index of an editor of a well ranked journal improved due to citations which occur after his/her appointment? Scientific recognition within academia is widely measured nowadays by the number of citations or h-index. Our dataset is based on a sample of four editors from a well ranked journal (impact factor – IF – greater than 2). The target group consists of two editors who seem to benefit by their position through an increased citation number (and subsequently h-index) within journal. The total amount of citations for the target group is bigger than 600. The control group is formed by another set of two editors from the same journal whose relations between their positions and their citation records remain neutral. The total amount of citations for the control group is more than 1200. The timespan for which citations’ pattern has been studied is 1975-2015. Previous coercive citations for a journal benefit (increase its IF) has been signaled. To the best of our knowledge, this is a pioneering work on coercive citations for personal (editors’) benefit. Editorial teams should be aware about this type of potentially unethical behavior and act accordingly.