How are journals cited? characterizing journal citations by type of citation
Evaluation of journals for quality is one of the dominant themes of bibliometrics since journals are the primary venue of vetting and distribution of scholarship. There are many criticisms of quantifying journal impact with bibliometrics including disciplinary differences among journals, what source materials are used, time windows for the inclusion of works to measure, and skewness of citation distributions (Lariviere & Sugimoto, 2019). However, despite various attempts to remediate these in newly proposed indicators such as SJR, SNIP, and Eigenfactor (Walters, 2017) indicators still remain based on citation counts and fail to acknowledge the critical differences that the type of citation made, whether it's supporting or disputing a work when quantifying journal impact. While various programs have been suggested to apply and encompass citation content analysis within bibliometrics projects, citation content analysis has not been done at the scale needed in order to supplement quantitate journal citation analysis until the scite citation index was produced. Using this citation index containing citation types based on citation function (supporting, disputing, or mentioning) we present initial results on the statistical characterization of citations to journals based on citation function. We also present initial results of characterizing the ratio of supports and disputes received by a journal as a potential indicator of quality and show two interesting results: the ratio of supports and disputes do not correlate with total citations and that the distribution of this ratio is not skewed showing a normal distribution. We conclude with a proposal for future research using citation analysis qualified by citation function as well as the implications of performing bibliometrics tasks such as research evaluation and information retrieval using citation function.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Information RetrievalRetrievalVocal Bursts Type PredictionMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Analyzing the State of Computer Science Research with the DBLP Discovery Dataset
The number of scientific publications continues to rise exponentially, especially in Computer Science (CS). However, current solutions to analyze those publications restrict access behind a paywall, offer no features for…
ArticlesPatterns of retractions from 1981-2020 : Does a fraud lead to another fraud?
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications and this database reveals the disturbing trend in science~\citep{fang2012misconduct, brainard2018massive}. The objective of the study is to find t…
ChatGPT cites the most-cited articles and journals, relying solely on Google Scholar's citation counts. As a result, AI may amplify the Matthew Effect in environmental science
ChatGPT (GPT) has become one of the most talked-about innovations in recent years, with over 100 million users worldwide. However, there is still limited knowledge about the sources of information GPT utilizes. As a resu…
ArticlesGuarding against artificial intelligence--hallucinated citations: the case for full-text reference deposit
The tendency of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "hallucinate" false information is well-known; AI-generated citations to non-existent sources have made their way into the reference lists of peer-review…
Examining Citations of Natural Language Processing Literature
We extracted information from the ACL Anthology (AA) and Google Scholar (GS) to examine trends in citations of NLP papers. We explore questions such as: how well cited are papers of different types (journal articles, con…
ArticlesSentiment AnalysisSentiment Classification