The Wisdom of Citing Scientists

[David Wojick]

Sorry Andrew, but I never wrote it up. It was unfunded and just a proof of concept.

David

On Aug 10, 2013, at 10:11 AM, A Carlin <acarlin865 at STCOLUMBS.COM> wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> 
> Hi David,
> do you have a reference for this study please?
> with thanks, Andrew
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick
> Sent: Sat 10/08/2013 14:40
> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The Wisdom of Citing Scientists
> 
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> 
> 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