Short papers get cited more often. Should we believe that the correlation is due to causal factors? Should aspriring researchers keep their titels as short as possible?
Given that all of the correlations reported in the paper are smaller in magnitude than −0.07, and when lumped by journal, smaller than −0.2, I don’t think that these observations, statistically “significant” though they are, can be taken as a basis for advice on choosing a title.
Short papers get cited more often. Should we believe that the correlation is due to causal factors? Should aspriring researchers keep their titels as short as possible?
Papers with very long titles tend to be about a very narrowly defined problem in a very narrow subfield therefore they get cited less?
Given that all of the correlations reported in the paper are smaller in magnitude than −0.07, and when lumped by journal, smaller than −0.2, I don’t think that these observations, statistically “significant” though they are, can be taken as a basis for advice on choosing a title.