The Wisdom of Citing Scientists

Sun Aug 11 11:05:38 EDT 2013

Dear David,

This is precisely the approach about "reasons" which one can attribute to
citations in the first article in Scientometrics 1989. For example, a
citation can function as a warrant or a legitimation.

Best,
Loet

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:40 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us>wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> The concept of the "reason" for a citaion is ambiguous because there are
> different kinds of reasons, some of which have been alluded to in our
> discussion. There are psychological reasons such as motivation,
> sociological reasons such as convention, strategic reasons, etc.
>
> Being a logician my interest is simply the role that the citation plays in
> the reasoning presented in the article. Science is after all a system of
> reasoning, often linked by citations. Every article is itself a complex
> structure of reasoning. I just wrote about this at
>
> <http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/>
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/
> .
>
> For example a citation may be part of the introductory historical
> narrative or it may be offering evidence supporting a strong claim, and
> this is a significant difference. We might call these the epistemic reasons
> for the citations. What role does the citation play in the reasoning?
>
> The point is that there are different kinds of reasons, which need to be
> sorted out in any scientific inquiry into the reasons for citations.
>
> David Wojick
>
> On Aug 10, 2013, at 9:56 AM, James Hartley < <j.hartley at KEELE.AC.UK>
> j.hartley at KEELE.AC.UK> wrote:
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> <http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> Peter Willett ( <p.willett at sheffield.ac.uk> <p.willett at sheffield.ac.uk>
> 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> <J.hartley at keele.ac.uk>
> 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> <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
> 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><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
> 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><Nsmalheiser at PSYCH.UIC.EDU>
> 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 [<SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU><SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
> mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>] *On
> Behalf Of *Katy Borner
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 8:29 AM
> *To:* <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
> 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><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html ****
>
> 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> <http://nrn.cns.iu.edu>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/><http://scimaps.org/maps/map/a_clickstream_map_of_83/>
>    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> <http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1554>
> 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> <bornmann at gv.mpg.de>bornmann at gv.mpg.de****
>
> WWW: <http://www.lutz-bornmann.de> <http://www.lutz-bornmann.de>
> www.lutz-bornmann.de****
>
> ResearcherID: <http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008><http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008>
> 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> <http://cns.iu.edu>http://cns.iu.edu****
>
> Curator, Mapping Science exhibit,  <http://scimaps.org> <http://scimaps.org>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 ****
>
>

-- 
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20130811/27a70d91/attachment.html>