The Wisdom of Citing Scientists

Sat Aug 10 09:56:58 EDT 2013

Peter Willett (p.willett at sheffield.ac.uk) published an interesting paper in the Journal of Documentation, 2012, 69, 1 pp??

Showing that most readers found it difficult to detect why authors had cited their references..

I (James Hartley) (J.hartley at keele.ac.uk) suggested 8 reasons for citing other work (based on other scholars views)  and argued that one should count citations in the reference lists and not in the texts to avoid overcounting.  (Scientometrics. 92,2, 313-317.)

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: 10 August 2013 14:40
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The Wisdom of Citing Scientists

I did a small study that found the majority of citations occurring in the introductory part of most of the articles. Over 60% of the citations occurred in the first 25% of the text on average. This section of the article is basically an historical narrative that explains the origin and nature of the research problem being reported on. The cited works need not have directly influenced the research being reported. 

Then the article typically goes on to explain what was done and what was found. Here the citations often identify the sources of methods used or data or some such. Direct influence is much more likely but the percentage of citations may be low. Finally there may be a broader discussion section, with relatively more citations.

The point is that many citations may not be indicators of direct influence (or impact), but rather of historical relevance. In some cases the citations may well be found only after the research is done.

David Wojick

On Aug 9, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "Smalheiser, Neil" <Nsmalheiser at PSYCH.UIC.EDU> wrote:

Since Katy covered one aspect of this issue, let me raise a complementary aspect that I have not seen discussed yet in this forum.  

When people DO cite references in a paper, they do so possibly for very different reasons, each with a different rationale and pattern of citing. 

1.       Ideally, in my opinion, an author should accurately cite the previous works that influenced them in the research that they are reporting. A research paper tells a story, and it is important to know what papers they read, and when, and how they were influenced. So if they were unaware of some relevant research at the time, it is not important (and even intellectually misleading) to cite it!

2.       Another reason that authors omit citations is on purpose – they wish to make their own contribution seem new and fresh, and even if they were aware of some prior relevant work, they may find some excuse not to cite it [e.g. it was done in Drosophila but my study is in rats].

3.     More often, authors attempt to identify all relevant prior research, in a prospective attempt to satisfy reviewers who are likely to give them a hard time if they don’t. Some authors even do this out of scholarliness, though that is not a particularly valued attribute in experimental science. As review articles appear on a given topic, it is often acceptable to simply cite one or two reviews which hides the impact of the primary papers (except for those that are most closely relevant to the present article, regardless of their impact to the field at large). This also means that papers will preferentially cite the most similar prior papers.

4.     Even more often, authors go out of their way to cite papers by potential reviewers or editorial board members of the journal that is considering the paper, or folks likely to be reviewing their grants. 

5.     A subtle variation of this is that an author will want to cite papers that appeared in prestigious journals, and avoid papers that were published in obscure or questionable places, to make their own paper look more classy and more likely to be reviewed favorably. 

6.     Some papers, particularly methods papers or famous papers, are almost pop references that provide bonding between author and reader. Citing the Watson-Crick double-helix paper (or the Mullis PCR method paper) is not just citing that paper, but is really a nod to a lot of related connotations and historical associations. These papers are highly cited because they are celebrities (famous for being famous), which does reflect impact but of a different sort. 

So counting citations to measure impact is like characterizing a person’s health by heart rate – it means something; it is important for sure; but you need to know a lot more to interpret it properly.

Neil

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Katy Borner
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 8:29 AM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The Wisdom of Citing Scientists

Good discussion. Quick comment:

Work by Bollen et al. shows that science maps generated from download (click stream) data have a substantially enlarged medical area. Medical papers, e.g., freely available via Medline, are downloaded/read/used widely by practitioners/doctors interested to improve health/save lives. However, these practitioners/doctors might not necessarily produce papers with citation references. 

Ideally, 'research evaluation' should aim to capture output and outcomes.

Many of us spent a substantial amount of our time training others, developing educational materials, in administration, or improving legal regulations. Research Networking systems like VIVO and others, see http://nrn.cns.iu.edu, provide access to more holistic data (papers, grants, courses; some systems are connected to even more detailed annual faculty report data) on scholar's roles in the S&T system--as researchers, mentors, administrators.
k

*	http://scimaps.org/maps/map/a_clickstream_map_of_83/
*	Bollen, Johan, Lyudmila Balakireva, Luís Bettencourt, Ryan Chute, Aric Hagberg, Marko A. Rodriguez, and Herbert Van de Sompel. 2009. “Clickstream Data Yields High-Resolution Maps of Science.” PLoS One 4 (3): 1-11. 

On 8/9/2013 3:22 AM, Bornmann, Lutz wrote:

The Wisdom of Citing Scientists

Lutz Bornmann <http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Bornmann_L/0/1/0/all/0/1> , Werner Marx <http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Marx_W/0/1/0/all/0/1> 

(Submitted on 7 Aug 2013)

This Brief Communication discusses the benefits of citation analysis in research evaluation based on Galton's "Wisdom of Crowds" (1907). Citations are based on the assessment of many which is why they can be ascribed a certain amount of accuracy. However, we show that citations are incomplete assessments and that one cannot assume that a high number of citations correlate with a high level of usefulness. Only when one knows that a rarely cited paper has been widely read is it possible to say (strictly speaking) that it was obviously of little use for further research. Using a comparison with 'like' data, we try to determine that cited reference analysis allows a more meaningful analysis of bibliometric data than times-cited analysis. 

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1554

---------------------------------------

Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann

Division for Science and Innovation Studies

Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society

Hofgartenstr. 8

80539 Munich

Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265

Mobil: +49 170 9183667

Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de

WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de

ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008

-- 
Katy Borner
Victor H. Yngve Professor of Information Science
Director, CI for Network Science Center, http://cns.iu.edu
Curator, Mapping Science exhibit, http://scimaps.org

ILS, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Wells Library 021, 1320 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
Phone: (812) 855-3256  Fax: -6166 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20130810/ff7bc20a/attachment.html>