Studies showing that review articles get more citations

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Le mardi 23 février 2010 à 09:06 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> 
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Tom Wilson <wilsontd at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >  Is it really worth exploring?
> >
> >  I'd have thought it self-evident that, if you are looking for a review of
> > the literature, as most authors are, you'll site existing reviews; similarly
> > with methodology - if you are using a particular theoretical perspective
> > you'll want to cite others as confirmation that you are on the right track.
> >  One of the problems of bibliometrics appears to be a stunning facility for
> > determining the obvious :-)
> 
> It is obvious that reviews will cite reviews, and that authors will
> cite supporting studies, but is it obvious that reviews are cited more
> than ordinary articles? Perhaps; but it would still be nice to see the
> evidence. Especially nice to see the evidence for review *articles* --
> relative to ordinary articles -- separated from the evidence for
> review *journals* relative to ordinary journals.
> 
> There has also been some evidence that articles that cite more
> references get more citations. Review articles usually cite more
> references than ordinary articles (indeed, that is one of the criteria
> ISI uses for classifying articles as reviews!). It would be nice to
> partial out the respective contributions of these factors too (along,
> of course, with self-citations, co-author citations, citation circles,
> etc.).
> 
> The outcomes may continue to be confirming the obvious, but it will
> still be nice to have the objective data at hand... :-)
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> > Tom Wilson
> >
> > On 23 February 2010 12:23, Jacques Wainer <wainer at ic.unicamp.br> wrote:
> >>
> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >>
> >> I used:
> >>
> >> @Article{reviewpap1,
> >>  author =       {Aksnes, D. W.},
> >>  title =        {Citation rates and perceptions of scientific
> >> contribution},
> >>  journal =      {Journal of the American Society for Information Science
> >> and Technology},
> >>  year =         2006,
> >>  key =          2,
> >>  volume =       57,
> >>  pages =        {169-185},
> >> doi = {10.1002/asi.20262}}
> >>
> >>
> >> @Article{reviewpap3,
> >>  author =       {H. P. F. Peters  and  A. F. J. van Raan},
> >>  title =        {On determinants of citation scores: A case study in
> >> chemical engineering},
> >>  journal =      {Journal of the American Society for Information Science},
> >>  year =         1994,
> >>  volume =       45,
> >>  number =       1,
> >>  pages =        {39 - 49}}
> >>
> >>
> >> as two references to the phenomenon. In this line, does anyone know
> >> of studies that point out that METHODOLOGICAL papers are also cited more
> >> than other research?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Jacques Wainer
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Professor Tom Wilson, PhD, PhD (h.c.),
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Publisher and Editor in Chief: Information Research: an international
> > electronic journal
> > Website - http://InformationR.net/ir/
> > Blog - http://info-research.blogspot.com/
> > Photoblog - http://tomwilson.shutterchance.com/
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > E-mail: wilsontd at gmail.com
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >