Bibliography for Citing Theory, Behavior and Context

Mon Aug 12 15:23:19 EDT 2013

Dear David and All,

I don’t think Yves is suggesting that there is nothing left to be learned,
but rather that some of the posts to this topic have seemed ignorant of the
extensive history on this topic. I agree with both views – that much history
has been ignored, and that there is a huge amount left to learn.

My suggestion is that we, as a community, put together a bibliography on the
subject. This will serve to inform us from the perspective of history (which
is extensive), and also help us know of recent work that can help us figure
out where to go next. To that end, I volunteer to start the bibliography. I
am by no means an expert in this area, but rather have been an interested
observer, collecting literature. The attached list is not in any way
exhaustive – it doesn’t even include all of the works that have been
mentioned in this thread (which I have renamed). My interest comes from the
perspective of citation context (and related topics), which builds directly
on the earlier work on citation theory, behavior, motivation, reasoning,
classification, etc. Thus, you’ll see that the attached file is slanted in
the citation context direction. This list is not completely my own – some of
the references have come from Dick Klavans and (particularly) Henry Small,
who has done much work in citation content/context.

You will see a number of computer science and biomedical references in this
list. My perception is that we are not paying enough attention to relevant
work being done in those fields. Biomedical and computer scientists are
currently doing far more work with full text sources than are we.
Unfortunately, there is very little cross-citation between similar efforts
in the three fields.

In any case, to those of you who are interested, please add to the
bibliography and re-post it. I think a joint effort can be of great benefit
to us all.

Best regards,

Kevin

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 12:16 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The Wisdom of Citing Scientists

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:

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 :

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:

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-e
xpressed-thought/> <
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-ex
pressed-thought/
<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-e
xpressed-thought/> >
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-ex
pressed-thought/.
<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-e
xpressed-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>
< mailto:j.hartley at KEELE.AC.UK  <mailto:j.hartley at KEELE.AC.UK> >
j.hartley at KEELE.AC.UK> wrote:

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  <mailto:p.willett at sheffield.ac.uk> >
<mailto:p.willett at sheffield.ac.uk> < 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  <mailto:J.hartley at keele.ac.uk> >
<mailto:J.hartley at keele.ac.uk> < 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  <mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >
<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> < 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

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
<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
<mailto:Nsmalheiser at PSYCH.UIC.EDU> >   <mailto:Nsmalheiser at PSYCH.UIC.EDU> <
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> < 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  <mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >
<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> < 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

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
<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/> < 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/> <
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> <
http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Bornmann_L/0/1/0/all/0/1
<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> <
http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Marx_W/0/1/0/all/0/1
<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> <
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
<mailto:bornmann at gv.mpg.de> >   <mailto:bornmann at gv.mpg.de> <
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
<http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/> >   <http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/> <
http://www.lutz-bornmann.de  <http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/> >
www.lutz-bornmann.de <http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/>
<http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/> < http://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> <
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.cirst.uqam.ca <http://www.cirst.uqam.ca/> 
http://www.ost.uqam.ca 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20130812/359d60aa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Citation_Behav_Context_Bib.txt
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20130812/359d60aa/attachment.txt>