IMU Critique of Citation Analysis

[Eugene Garfield]

I think you have to be careful about using the term citation analysis in
a blanket fashion. Even if the IMU was only concerned about rating
mathematicians there are no blanket statements that apply. Years ago I
did several citation analyses of mathematicians and math journals. I
have listed the group I find quickly from my web page:

 

Document Title

Journal Citation Studies. 36. Pure and Applied Mathematics Journals.
What they cite and vice versa. 
   http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p484y1981-82.pdf

 
<http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p484y1981-82.pdf#xml=htt
p://the-scientist.verity.library.upenn.edu/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=Vi
ew&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egarfield%2Elibrary%2Eupenn%2Eedu%2Fessay
s%2Fv5p484y1981%2D82%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=Essays&QueryZip=mathem
atics+or+math&> 

 

The 200 "Pure" Mathematicians Most Cited in 1978 and 1979, Including a
List of Most-Cited Publications for the Top 100 
   http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p666y1981-82.pdf

 
<http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p666y1981-82.pdf#xml=htt
p://the-scientist.verity.library.upenn.edu/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=Vi
ew&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egarfield%2Elibrary%2Eupenn%2Eedu%2Fessay
s%2Fv5p666y1981%2D82%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=Essays&QueryZip=mathem
atics+or+math&> 

 

The Multidisciplinary Impact of Math and Computer Science Is Reflected
in the 100 Most-Cited Articles in CompuMath Citation Index, 1976-1980 
   http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p232y1984.pdf

 
<http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p232y1984.pdf#xml=http:/
/the-scientist.verity.library.upenn.edu/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&
VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egarfield%2Elibrary%2Eupenn%2Eedu%2Fessays%2
Fv7p232y1984%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=Essays&QueryZip=mathematics+or
+math&> 

 

The Most-Cited Physical-Sciences Publications in the 1945-1954 Science
Citation Index. Part 2. Twenty Citation Classics in Mathematics 
   http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p376y1990.pdf

 
<http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p376y1990.pdf#xml=http:
//the-scientist.verity.library.upenn.edu/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View
&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egarfield%2Elibrary%2Eupenn%2Eedu%2Fessays%
2Fv13p376y1990%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=Essays&QueryZip=mathematics+
or+math&> 

 

gpd7213.tmp 
   
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v15p439subjectindexy1992-93
.pdf

 
<http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v15p439subjectindexy1992-9
3.pdf#xml=http://the-scientist.verity.library.upenn.edu/search97cgi/s97_
cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egarfield%2Elibrary%2Eupenn%
2Eedu%2Fessays%2Fv15p439subjectindexy1992%2D93%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collect
ion=Essays&QueryZip=mathematics+or+math&> 

 

The Most-Cited Physical-Sciences Publications in the 1945-1954 Science
Citation Index. Part 2. Twenty Citation Classics in Mathematics 
   http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p381y1990.pdf

 
<http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p381y1990.pdf#xml=http:
//the-scientist.verity.library.upenn.edu/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View
&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egarfield%2Elibrary%2Eupenn%2Eedu%2Fessays%
2Fv13p381y1990%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=Essays&QueryZip=mathematics+
or+math&> 

 

I never heard any objection from IMU or anyone else to these studies.
Also of interest is:

 

The 100 most-cited books in the CompuMath Citation Index, 1976-1980 
   http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p264y1984.pdf

 
<http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p264y1984.pdf#xml=http:/
/the-scientist.verity.library.upenn.edu/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&
VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egarfield%2Elibrary%2Eupenn%2Eedu%2Fessays%2
Fv7p264y1984%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=Essays&QueryZip=fields+medal&>


 

Someone needs to do a citation analysis of the winners of Fields Medals
including Hi-Indexes. I haven't determined whether anyone has done
co-citation analyses of math subjects which would be a better way to
confirm your assertion that math is not susceptible to identifying
paradigm shifts. It all depends on how you do it and what you are
looking for. EG

 

________________________________

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:49 AM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: [SIGMETRICS] IMU Critique of Citation Analysis

 

In re the recent flap caused by the International Mathematical Union
critique of citation analysis, I checked the distribution of mathematics
journals by impact factor in the 2007 SCI JCR.  It was as I suspected.
The range of impact factors was only from 0.108 to
2.739--extraordinarily low and tight--and the top journals on the impact
factor had no review articles.  This is suggestive of an extremely
random citation pattern with no development of consensual paradigms.
Therefore, math acts like a humanities in terms of its literature use,
and citation analysis is probably not applicable to this discipline.  If
citation analysis is used, it has to be backed by other measures.

 

 

Stephen J. Bensman

LSU Libraries

Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge, LA   70803

USA

notsjb at lsu.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20080627/1737e0b9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 88 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20080627/1737e0b9/attachment.gif>