The Wisdom of Citing Scientists

Mon Aug 12 14:15:59 EDT 2013

Dear Yves,

If you are claiming that this topic has been exhausted by past work, such 
that there is nothing important left to discover, then I disagree strongly. 
Exciting new methods, data and insights are being brought to bear, ranging 
from altmetrics to network theory. In fact one can argue that when one 
applies a new approach the vast existing literature is largely irrelevant 
by definition. (For example I am sure that no one has applied my work on 
the structure of reasoning, so I need not look to see what they have found.)

I suspect this is one reason why historical citations are often found only 
after the research is done.

Regards,

David Wojick

At 10:01 AM 8/12/2013, you wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Hello all
>
>With all due respect for everyone discussing here the many reasons why people
>cite a given paper, I cannot but be struck by the tendency of some to 
>reinvent
>the wheel or think (and write) as if nobody had raised those very questions
>decades before... One cannot imagine a physics discussion group where someone
>would write a comment saying "I think that apples do not fall at constant 
>speed"
>or "I think classical mechanics does not apply at the atomic level". It is 
>taken
>for granted that before talking physics one must READ the previous 
>literature.
>WHy should it be different in scientometrics?
>
>Here it seems to be accepted that one can lunch a "serious" discussion 
>about the
>"fact" that there "can be" negative citations...
>
>As a rader of sigmetrics I find a bit depressing the lack of respect for
>previous work. I do not have the time to construct a reference list on the
>question of the many kinds of reasons for citing but at least a good minimum
>beginning would be Blaise Cronin 1984 (!) book on "The citation process". 
>A more
>recent review is Loet's 1998  paper in Scientometrics on "Theories of
>citations" But the literature is huge...
>
>I guess you will now have understood why I rarely write on those discussion
>groups... But it is Sunday and an exception does not change a rule...
>
>:)
>
>Cordially to all
>
>Yves Gingras
>
>
>Le 11/08/13 11:05, « Loet Leydesdorff » <loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET> a écrit :
>
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>
>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>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/.>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 < 
><mailto: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>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>
>Peter Willett ( 
><mailto:p.willett at sheffield.ac.uk>  <mailto: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) ( 
><mailto:J.hartley at keele.ac.uk>  <mailto: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]>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] 
>On Behalf Of David Wojick
>Sent: 10 August 2013 14:40
>To:  <mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> 
><mailto: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>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" < 
><mailto:Nsmalheiser at PSYCH.UIC.EDU>  <mailto: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 [ 
><mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>  <mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> 
><mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] 
>On Behalf Of Katy Borner
>Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 8:29 AM
>To:  <mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> 
><mailto: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>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,>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/>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>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 <tel:%2B49%2089%202108%201265>
>Mobil: +49 170 9183667 <tel:%2B49%20170%209183667>
>Email:  <mailto:bornmann at gv.mpg.de>  <mailto: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 <http://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>http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yves Gingras
>
>Professeur
>Département d'histoire
>Centre interuniversitaire de recherche
>sur la science et la technologie (CIRST)
>Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire
>et sociologie des sciences
>Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST)
>UQAM
>C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville
>Montréal, Québec
>Canada, H3C 3P8
>
>Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053
>Fax: (514)-987-7726
>
><http://www.chss.uqam.ca>http://www.chss.uqam.ca
>http://www.cirst.uqam.ca
><http://www.ost.uqam.ca>http://www.ost.uqam.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20130812/6cc7e100/attachment.html>