The citation impact of social sciences and humanities upon patentable technology

This paper examines the citation impact of papers published in scientific-scholarly journals upon patentable technology, as reflected in examiner- or inventor-given references in granted patents. It analyses data created by SCImago Research Group, linking PATSTAT’s scientific non-patent references (SNPRs) to source documents indexed in Scopus. The frequency of patent citations to journal papers is calculated per discipline, year, institutional sector, journal subject category, and for “top” journals. PATSTAT/Scopus-based statistics are compared to those derived from Web of Science/USPTO linkage. A detailed assessment is presented of the technological impact of research publications in social sciences and humanities (SSH). Several subject fields perform well in terms of the number of citations from patents, especially Library and Information Science, Language and Linguistics, Education, and Law, but many of the most cited journals find themselves in the interface between SSH and biomedical or natural sciences. Analyses of the titles of citing patents and cited papers are presented that shed light upon the cognitive content of patent citations. It is proposed to develop more advanced indicators of citation impact of papers upon patents, and ways to combine citation counts with citation content and context analysis.

     

Positive and negative aspects of citation indices and journal impact factors

The Hirsch citation index h is nowadays the most frequently used numerical indicator for the performance of scientists as reflected in their output and in the reaction of the scientific community reflected in citations of individual contributions. A few of the possible improvements of h are briefly reviewed. Garfield??s journal impact factor (IF) characterizes the reaction of the scientific community to publications in journals, reflected in citations of all papers published in any given journal during the preceding 2?years, and normalized against all citable articles during the same period. Again, a few of the possible improvements or supplements of IF are briefly reviewed, including the journal-h index proposed by Braun, Gl?nzel, and Schubert. Ascribing higher weighting factors to citations of individual papers proportionally to IF is considered to be a misuse of useful numerical indices based on citations. At most, one could turn this argument on its head and one can find reasons to ascribe an inverse proportionality relative to IF for individual citations: if a paper is considered worthy to be cited even if it was published in a low-IF journal, that citation ought to be worth more than if the citation would have been from a higher-impact journal. A weight factor reflecting the prestige of the citing author(s) may also be considered.     

Publication and citation patterns of the Mexican contribution to a “Big Science” discipline: Elementary particle physics

The publication and citation patterns of the Mexican community in elementary particle physics (MEPP) were determined by bibliometric analysis of the scientific production and citations registered in the SPIRES-HEP system from 1971 to 2000. All papers, both citing and cited, were classified as theoretical, phenomenological or experimental according to the type of study carried out and citing papers as local (Mexican) or foreign. The growth dynamics of the citation patterns over the thirty-year period was also studied. Results show that the Mexican scientific community in EPP follow the pre-publication and pre-citation communication patterns typical of a Big Science field. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A longitudinal analysis of citation distribution breadth for Chinese scholars

Over the past 30 years, the research behavior of Chinese scholars has continually evolved. This paper studied the citing behavior of Chinese scholars by employing three indicators of citation concentration from the perspective of citation breadth analysis. All the citations from 2,338,033 papers from the Chinese Citation Database (1979–2008) covering four disciplines—Chemistry; Clinical Medicine; Library, Information and Archival Science; and Chinese Literature and World Literature—were analyzed. Empirical results show a general weakening tendency towards citation concentration: (1) decreasing percentage of uncited published papers within a given year; (2) a higher percentage of papers required to account for the same proportion of citation than before; and (3) the steady decline in the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) of citation distribution. All three measures indicate a decline in citing concentration or an increase in citation breadth. This phenomenon may be the result of increased access to materials, perhaps because of the ease with which scholarly materials can be accessed through the Internet.     

Tracing the wider impacts of biomedical research: a literature search to develop a novel citation categorisation technique

There is an increasing need both to understand the translation of biomedical research into improved healthcare and to assess the range of wider impacts from health research such as improved health policies, health practices and healthcare. Conducting such assessments is complex and new methods are being sought. Our new approach involves several steps. First, we developed a qualitative citation analysis technique to apply to biomedical research in order to assess the contribution that individual papers made to further research. Second, using this method, we then proposed to trace the citations to the original research through a series of generations of citing papers. Third, we aimed eventually to assess the wider impacts of the various generations. This article describes our comprehensive literature search to inform the new technique. We searched various databases, specific bibliometrics journals and the bibliographies of key papers. After excluding irrelevant papers we reviewed those remaining for either general or specific details that could inform development of our new technique. Various characteristics of citations were identified that had been found to predict their importance to the citing paper including the citation??s location; number of citation occasions and whether the author(s) of the cited paper were named within the citing paper. We combined these objective characteristics with subjective approaches also identified from the literature search to develop a citation categorisation technique that would allow us to achieve the first of the steps above, i.e., being able routinely to assess the contribution that individual papers make to further research.     

Exploring the analytical potential of comparing citing and cited source items

Summary Comparing properties of citing and cited source items opens a wide variety of analytical possibilities. In a study of citations among papers in the journal Scientometrics a number of analytical themes are identified. The analysis shows: the way in which a citation graph can be decomposed into different subparts; country specific citation patterns; the effects of self-citations and domestic citations; the mapping of cited author relationships using direct citation and co-citation links; and time slicing effects on impact ranking of countries and papers.     

Exploiting Structural Similarities to Classify Citations

Citations play an important role in the scientific community by assisting in measuring multifarious policies like the impact of journals, researchers, institutions, and countries. Authors cite papers for different reasons, such as extending previous work, comparing their study with the state-of-the-art, providing background of the field, etc. In recent years, researchers have tried to conceptualize all citations into two broad categories, important and incidental. Such a categorization is very important to enhance scientific output in multiple ways, for instance, (1) Helping a researcher in identifying meaningful citations from a list of 100 to 1000 citations (2) Enhancing the impact factor calculation mechanism by more strongly weighting important citations, and (3) Improving researcher, institutional, and university rankings by only considering important citations. All of these uses depend upon correctly identifying the important citations from the list of all citations in a paper. To date, researchers have utilized many features to classify citations into these broad categories: cue phrases, in-text citation counts, and metadata features, etc. However, contemporary approaches are based on identification of in-text citation counts, mapping sections onto the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure, identifying cue phrases, etc. Identifying such features accurately is a challenging task and is normally conducted manually, with the accuracy of citation classification demonstrated in terms of these manually extracted features. This research proposes to examine the content of the cited and citing pair to identify important citing papers for each cited paper. This content similarity approach was adopted from research paper recommendation approaches. Furthermore, a novel section-based content similarity approach is also proposed. The results show that solely using the abstract of the cited and citing papers can achieve similar accuracy as the state-of-the-art approaches. This makes the proposed approach a viable technique that does not depend on manual identification of complex features.     

CAD: an algorithm for citation-anchors detection in research papers

Citations are very important parameters and are used to take many important decisions like ranking of researchers, institutions, countries, and to measure the relationship between research papers. All of these require accurate counting of citations and their occurrence (in-text citation counts) within the citing papers. Citation anchors refer to the citation made within the full text of the citing paper for example: ‘[1]’, ‘(Afzal et al, 2015)’, ‘[Afzal, 2015]’ etc. Identification of citation-anchors from the plain-text is a very challenging task due to the various styles and formats of citations. Recently, Shahid et al. highlighted some of the problems such as commonality in content, wrong allotment, mathematical ambiguities, and string variations etc in automatically identifying the in-text citation frequencies. The paper proposes an algorithm, CAD, for identification of citation-anchors and its in-text citation frequency based on different rules. For a comprehensive analysis, the dataset of research papers is prepared: on both Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS) and (2) CiteSeer digital libraries. In experimental study, we conducted two experiments. In the first experiment, the proposed approach is compared with state-of-the-art technique over both datasets. The J.UCS dataset consists of 1200 research papers with 16,000 citation strings or references while the CiteSeer dataset consists of 52 research papers with 1850 references. The total dataset size becomes 1252 citing documents and 17,850 references. The experiments showed that CAD algorithm improved F-score by 44% and 37% respectively on both J.UCS and CiteSeer dataset over the contemporary technique (Shahid et al. in Int J Arab Inf Technol 12:481–488, 2014). The average score is 41% on both datasets. In the second experiment, the proposed approach is further analyzed against the existing state-of-the-art tools: CERMINE and GROBID. According to our results, the proposed approach is best performing with F1 of 0.99, followed by GROBID (F1 0.89) and CERMINE (F1 0.82).     

Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?

A comprehensive discussion on the use of citation analysis to rate scientific performance and the controversy surrounding it. The general adverse criticism that citation counts include an excessive number of negative citations (citations to incorrect results worthy of attack), self-citations (citations to the works of the citing authors), and citations to methodological papers is analyzed. Included are a discussion of measurement problems such as counting citations for multiauthored papers, distinguishing between more than one person with the same last name (homographs), and what it is that citation analysis actually measures. It is concluded that as the scientific enterprise becomes larger and more complex, and its role in society more critical, it will become more difficult, expensive and necessary to evaluate and identify the largest contributors. When properly used, citation analysis can introduce a useful measure of objectivity into the evaluation process at relatively low financial cost.Modification of a chapter in E. Garfield:Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and the Humanities, New York, Wiley, 1979.     

Observations and hypotheses on the phenomenon of multiple citation to a research group's oeuvre

This paper analyses the phenomenon when a publication referring to the oeuvre of a research group (i.e. all the articles published by its members) cites several articles rather than one article from that oeuvre (multiple citations, MC). It is shown that significant differences exist between research groups with respect to the frequency at which MC to their respective oeuvres occur, and that these differences affect to some extent rankings of these groups based on citation counts. In order to find an explanation for our results, four factors are discussed: (1) the impact of a research group; (2) mutual multiple citing arrangements; (3) the size of a group's oeuvre and (4): the degree of common intellectual interest between the research activities in a group. No definite conclusions can be drawn yet on the extent to which these factors are responsible for the observed patterns in the MC frequency. We conclude however that attempts to identify ‘top’ or ‘sub-top’ groups in comparative evaluations based on citation analysis should be performed with the greatest care.     

Influence of proceedings papers on citation impact in seven sub-fields of sustainable energy research 2005–2011

This paper analyses the following seven sub-fields of Sustainable Energy Research with respect to the influence of proceedings papers on citation patterns across citing and cited document types, overall sub-field and document type impacts and citedness: the Wind Power, Renewable Energy, Solar and Wave Energy, Geo-thermal, Bio-fuel and Bio-mass energy sub-fields. The analyses cover peer reviewed research and review articles as well as two kinds of proceeding papers from conferences published 2005–2009 in (a) book series or volumes and (b) special journal issues excluding meeting abstracts cited 2005–2011 through Web of Science. Central findings are: The distribution across document types of cited versus citing documents is highly asymmetric. Predominantly proceedings papers from both proceeding volumes as well as published in journals cite research articles (60–76 %). Largely, journal-based proceedings papers are cited rather than papers published in book series or volumes and have field impacts corresponding to research articles. With decreasing proceedings paper dominance in research fields the ratio of proceeding paper volumes over journal-based proceedings papers decreases significantly and the percentage of proceedings papers in journals citing journal-based proceedings papers over all publications citing journal-based proceedings papers decreases significantly (from 26.3 % in Wind Power to 4 % in Bio Fuel). Further, the segment of all kinds of proceedings papers (the combined proceedings paper types) citing all proceedings papers over all publications citing all kinds of proceedings papers decreases significantly (from 36.1 % in Wind Power to 11.3 % in Bio Fuel). Simultaneously the field citedness increases across the seven research fields. The distribution of citations from review articles shows that novel knowledge essentially derives directly from research articles (53–72 %)—to a much less extent from proceedings publications published in journals (9–13 %).     

The citation advantage of foreign language references for Chinese social science papers

Contemporary scientific exchanges are international, yet language continues to be a persistent barrier to scientific communication, particularly for non-native English-speaking scholars. Since the ability to absorb knowledge has a strong impact on how researchers create new scientific knowledge, comprehensive access to and understanding of both domestic and international scientific publications is essential for scientific performance. This study explores the effect of absorbed knowledge on research impact by analyzing the relationship between the language diversity of cited references and the number of citations received by the citing paper. Chinese social sciences are taken as the research object, and the data, 950,302 papers published between 1998 and 2013 with 8,151,327 cited references, were collected from the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index. Results show that there is a stark increase in the consumption of foreign language material within the Chinese social science community, and English material accounts for the vast majority of this consumption. Papers with foreign language references receive significantly more citations than those without, and the citation advantage of these internationalized work holds when we control for characteristics of the citing papers, such as the discipline, prestige of journal, prestige of institution, and scientific collaboration. However, the citation advantage has decreased from 1998 to 2008, largely as an artifact of the increased number of papers citing foreign language material. After 2008, however, the decline of the citation advantage subsided and became relatively stable, which suggests that incorporating foreign language literature continues to increase scientific impact, even as the scientific community itself becomes increasingly international. However, internationalization is not without concerns: the work closes with a discussion of the potential problems associated with the lack of linguistic diversity in scientific communication.

     

Application of progressive nucleation mechanism for the citation behavior of individual papers of different authors

The basic concepts and equations of the progressive nucleation mechanism (PNM) are presented first for the growth and decay of items. The mechanism is then applied to describe the cumulative citations L and citations ΔL per year of the individual most-cited papers i of four selected Polish professors as a function of citation duration t. It was found that the PNM satisfactorily describes the time dependence of cumulative citations L of the papers published by different authors with sufficiently high citations ΔL, as represented by the highest yearly citations ΔL(max) during the entire citation period t (normal citation behavior). The citation period for these papers is less than 15?years and it is even 6-8?years in several cases. However, for papers with citation periods exceeding about 15?years, the growth behavior of citations does not follow the PNM in the entire citation period (anomalous citation behavior), and there are regions of citations in which the citation data may be described by the PNM. Normal and anomalous citation behaviors are attributed, respectively, to the occurrence and nonoccurrence of stationary nucleation of citations for the papers. The PNM also explains the growth and decay of citations ΔL per year of papers exhibiting normal citation behavior.     

Citations: Indicators of significance?

What makes a scientific article significant? This paper-part of a larger study which will examine how various kinds of significance can be related to one another in a coherent theoretical framework-focusses on the processes by which new knowledge claims are being integrated into the cognitive structure when they are cited in other papers. Citations appear both as “threads” linking the citing papers to the existing literature in the field, and as elements fulfilling specific functions within the arguments made in these papers. We have found that (1) it is misleading to equate every article with a single knowledge claim, let alone with an attempt to construct “a fact”; (2) even when the same “sentence” is cited repeatedly, it can be put to quite different uses in the citing papers; and (3) the process of codification of scientific knowledge through the use of references appears to be far more complex and multi-dimensional than citation context analyses focussing on the use and the gradual disappearance of modalities would lead us to believe. Some consequences for the use use of citation analysis to reconstruct cognitive structures will be discussed.     

The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation

The present paper addresses some of the many possible uses of citations, including bookmark, intellectual heritage, impact tracker, and self-serving purposes. The main focus is on the applicability of citation analysis as an impact or quality measure. If a paper's bibliography is viewed as consisting of a directed (research impact or quality) component related to intellectual heritage and random components related to specific self-interest topics, then for large numbers of citations from many different citing paper, the most significant intellectual heritage (research impact or quality) citations will aggregate and the random author-specific self-serving citations will be scattered and not accumulate. However, there are at least two limitations to this model of citation analysis for stand-alone use as a measure of research impact of quality. First, the reference to intellectual heritage could be positive or negative. Second, there could be systemic biases which affect the aggregate results, and one of these, the “Pied Piper Effect”, is described in detail. Finally, the results of a short citation study comparing Russian and American papers in different technical fields are presented. The questions raised in interpreting this data highlight a few of the difficulties in attempting to interpret citation results without supplementary information. Leydesdorff (Leydesdorff, 1998) addresses the history of citations and citation analysis, and the transformation of a reference mechanism into a purportedly quantitive measure of research impact/quality. The present paper examines different facets of citations and citation analysis, and discusses the validity of citation analysis as a useful measure of research impact/quality.     

Modeling the obsolescence of research literature in disciplinary journals through the age of their cited references

There are different citation habits in the research fields that influence the obsolescence of the research literature. We analyze the distinctive obsolescence of research literature in disciplinary journals in eight scientific subfields based on cited references distribution, as a synchronous approach. We use both negative binomial (NB) and Poisson distributions to capture this obsolescence. The corpus being examined is published in 2019 and covers 22,559 papers citing 872,442 references. Moreover, three measures to analyze the tail of the distribution are proposed: (i) cited reference survival rate, (ii) cited reference mortality rate, and (iii) cited reference percentile. These measures are interesting because the tail of the distribution collects the behavior of the citations at the time when the document starts to get obsolete in the sense that it is little cited (used). As main conclusion, the differences observed in obsolescence are so important even between disciplinary journals in the same subfield, that it would be necessary to use some measure for the tail of the citation distribution, such as those proposed in this paper, when analyzing in an appropriate way the long time impact of a journal.

     

Citation frequency: A biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles

Context. The use of citation frequency and impact factor as measures of research quality and journal prestige is being criticized. Citation frequency is augmented by self-citation and for most journals the majority of citations originate from a minority of papers. We hypothesized that citation frequency is also associated with the geographical origin of the research publication. Objective. We determined whether citations originate more frequently from institutes that are located in the same country as the authors of the cited publication than would be expected by chance. Design. We screened citations referring to 1200 cardiovascular publications in the 7 years following their publication. For the 1200 citation recipient publications we documented the country where the research originated (9 countries/regions) and the total number of received citations. For a selection of 8864 citation donor papers we registered the country/region where the citing paper originated. Results. Self-citation was common in cardiovascular journals (n = 1534, 17.8%). After exclusion of self-citation, however, the number of citations that originated from the same country as the author of the citation recipient was found to be on average 31.6% higher than would be expected by chance (p<0.01 for all countries/regions). In absolute numbers, nation oriented citation bias was most pronounced in the USA, the country with the largest research output (p<0.001). Conclusion. Citation frequency was significantly augmented by nation oriented citation bias. This nation oriented citation behaviour seems to mainly influence the cumulative citation number for papers originating from the countries with a larger research output.     

A quasi-quantitative citation model

On the basis of investigating author's opinion on citing motivations of chemistry papers aquasi-quantitative model for citing is suggested. The model selects professional and nonprofessional motivations of citing and introduces thecitation threshold concept which tries to characterize the effect of citing motivations quantitatively. Possible reasons for missing citations are also treated. Mean ages of real and of self-citations were calculated by subtracting the average of the publication years of cited papers from the publication year of the citing publication. The difference between the mean ages may characterize thesynchronity of the author's research in comparison with those working on similar topics. The paper introduces thecitation strategy indicator which relates impact factors of cited periodicals with the mean impact factor of periodicals in the corresponding research subfield.