Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theories of citation?

  • Disscusion Paper
  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

‘By now, it may seem redundant to say that a theory of citation is badly needed.’ Zuckerman (1987)95

Abstract

Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of (first-order) authors and the network of their reflexive (that is, second-order) communications, a sub-textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. The recursive operation of this dual-layered network induces the perception of a cognitive dimension in scientific communication.Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one (or sometimes two) of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations (‘mappings’) of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. For example, a sociological interpretation of citations can be distinguished from an information-theoretical one. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abernathy, William J. andKim B. Clark, Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction,Research Policy, 14 (1985) 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adair, W. C., Citation indexes for scientific literature?,American Documentation, 6 (1955) 31–32.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amsterdamska, Olga andLoet Leydesdorff, Citations: Indicators of significance,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 449–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnes, Barry andDavid Edge Science in Context. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bazerman, Charles,Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burt, Ronald S.,Toward a Structural Theory of Action. Academic Press, New York, etc., 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burt, Ronald S., Network data from archival records. In:R. S. Burt andM. J. Minor (Eds):Applied Network Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, etc., 1983, pp. 158–174.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bush, Vannevar (1945),The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President. Reprinted: Arno Press, New York, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, William A. Turner, andSerge Bauin, From translation to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis,Social Science Information, 22 (1983) 191–235.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Callon, Michel, John Law, andArie Rip (Eds),Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Macmillan, London, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, andHervé Penan,La Scientométrie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cambridge Modern History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1958.

  13. Chubin, D. E., andS. Moitra, Content analysis of references: Adjunct of alternative to citation counting,Social Studies of Science, 5 (1975) 423–441.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chubin, Daryl andSal Restivo, The ‘mooting’ of science studies: research programmes and science policy. In:Karin D. Knorr-Cetina andMichael J. Mulkay (Eds),Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Studies of Science. Sage, London, 1983, pp. 53–83.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Collins, Harry M., The possibilities of science policy,Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 554–558.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cozzens, Susan E., Taking the measure of science: A review of citation theories,Newsletter of the International Society for the Sociology of Knowledge, 8 (1981) 16.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cozzens, Susan E., Comparing between the sciences: Citation context analysis of papers from neuropharmacology and the sociology of science,Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 127–153.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cozzens, Susan E., What do citations count? The rhetorical-first model,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 437–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cronin, Blaise, The need for a theory of citation,Journal of Documentation, 37 (1981) 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cronin, Blaise,The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication, Taylor Graham, London, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Edge, David, Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical overview,History of Science, 17 (1979) 102–134.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Elkana, Yehuda, Joshua Lederberg, Robert K. Merton, Arnold Thackray, andHarriet Zuckerman,Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators. John Wiley, New York, etc., 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fujigaki, Yuko, Filling the gap between discussions on science and scientists' everyday activities: Applying the autopoiesis system theory to scientific knowledge,Social Science Information, 37 (1997) 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Garfield, Eugene, Citation indexes for science,Science, 122 (1955) 108–111.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Garfield, Eugene, The obliteration phenomenon,Current Contents, No. 51/52 (1975) 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Garfield, Eugene,Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities John Wiley, New York, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Garfield, Eugene, When to cite?Library Quarterly 66 (1996, nr. 4), 449–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Garvey, W. D.,Communication: The Essence of Science, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Giddens, Anthony,The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gilbert, G. Nigel, Referencing as persuasion,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gilbert, G. Nigel, A simulation of the structure of academic science,Sociological Research Online 2 (1997, no. 2) 〈http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/3.html〉

  32. Gilbert, G. Nigel andMichael J. Mulkay,Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gillmor, C. Stewart, Federal funding and knowledge growth in ionospheric physics, 1945–81,Social Studies of Science, 16 (1986) 105–133.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Glänzel, Wolfgang (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop in ‘Bibliometric Standards’,Scientometrics, 35 (1996) 165–277.

  35. Gouldner, Alvin,The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology, Macmillan, London, etc., 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Habermas, Jürgen,Theorie des kommunikativen Handeln. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Jencks, C. andD. Riesman,The Academic Revolution, Doubleday, Garden City NY, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kaplan, Norman, The norms of citation behaviour: Prolegomena to the footnote,American Documentation, 16 (1965) 179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kronick, David,Scientific and Technical Periodicals of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: a Guide. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J., 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kuhn, Thomas S.,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962/1970.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Langton, Christopher G. (Ed.),Artificial Life. Addison Wesley, Redwood City, CA, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Latour, Bruno,Science in Action. Open University, Milton Keynes, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Latour, Bruno andSteve Woolgar,Laboratory Life, Sage, Beverly Hills, etc., 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Leydesdorff, Loet, Various methods for the mapping of science,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 291–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Leydesdorff, Loet, Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization,Research Policy, 18 (1989) 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Leydesdorff, Loet, A validation study of ‘LEXIMAPPE’,Scientometrics, 25 (1992) 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Leydesdorff, Loet, ‘Structure’/‘Action’ contingencies and the model of parallel processing,Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23 (1993) 47–77.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Leydesdorff, Loet,The Challenge of Scientometrics: The development, measurement and self-organization of scientific communications, DSWO Press, Leiden University, Leiden, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Leydesdorff, Loet, The New Communication Regime of University-Industry-Government Relations, In:Henry Etzkowitz andLoet Leydesdorff (Eds),Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Cassell Academic, London, 1997, pp. 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Leydesdorff, Loet, John Irvine, andAnthony F. Van Raan (Eds.), The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in STS,Scientometrics, (Theme Issue), 15 (1989) 333–631.

  51. Leydesdorff, Loet andOlga Amsterdamska, Dimensions of citation analysis,Science, Technology and Human Values, 15 (1990) 305–335.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Leydesdorff, Loet andPaul Wouters, Quantitative measuring and qualitative understanding: Is it possible to bridge the divide in STS?,EASST Review, 15 (1996, Nr. 3) 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Leydesdorff, Loet andPeter Van den Besselaar, Scientometrics and communication theory: Towards theoretically informed indicators,Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Luhmann, Niklas,Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Luukkonen, Terttu,Citations in the Rhetorical, Reward, and Communication Systems of Science. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tampere, Tampere, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Luukkonen, Terttu, Why has Latour's theory of citation been ignored by the bibliometric community?Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. MacRoberts, M. H. andMacRoberts, B. R., Another test of the normal theory of citing,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 16 (1987) 151–172.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Martin, Ben andJohn Irvine, Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Maturana, H. R., andF. Varela,Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Reidel, Boston, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Meadows, A. J.,Communication in Science. Butterworths, London, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Merton, Robert K., Priorities in scientific discovery,American Sociological Review, 22 (1957, 6), 635–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Merton, Robert K.,On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript. The Free Press, New York, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Merton, Robert K., The Matthew effect in science,Science, 159 (5 January 1968, No. 3810) 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Moed, Henk F., W. J. M. Burger, J. G. Frankfort, andAnthony F. J. Van Raan, The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance,Research Policy, 14 (1985) 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Moravcsik, M. J. andP. Murugesan, Some results on the function and quality of citations,Social Studies of Science, 5 (1975) 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mukkay, M., J. Potter, andS. Yearley, Why an analysis of scientific discourse is needed. In:K. D. Knorr-Centina andM. Mulkay (Eds),Science Observed, Sage, London, 1983, pp. 171–203

    Google Scholar 

  67. Nadel, Ernest, Commitment and co-citation: An indicator of incommensurability in patterns of formal communication,Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 255–282.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Narin, Frances Evaluative Bibliometrics, Computer Horizons Inc., Cherry Hill, NJ, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Price, Derek de Solla,Science Since Babylon. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Price, Derek de Solla, Networks of Scientific Papers,Science 149 (1965) 510–515.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Price, Derek de Solla,Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Price, Derek de Solla, Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. In:C. E. Nelson andD. K. Pollack (Eds),Communication among Scientists and Engineers. Heath, Lexington, MA, 1970, pp. 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Rip, Arie andMarjan Hennekam, Acknowledging Funding inBiotechnology and Bioengineering, Science Dynamics, Report to the US National Science Foundation, Amsterdam, 1985.

  74. Rumelhart, D. E., J. L. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group,Parallel Distributed Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Small, Henry, Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (1973) 265–269.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Small, Henry G. Characteristics of Frequently Cited Papers in Chemistry. Final Report on NSF Contract #C795, ISI, Philadelphia (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Small, Henry, Cited documents as concept symbols,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1978) 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Small, Henry, Recapturing physics in the 1920s through citation analysis,Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 36 (1986) 142–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Small, Henry andBelver Griffith, The structure of the scientific literature I,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Snyder, Herbert, Blaise Cronin, andElisabeth Davenport What's the use of citation? Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences,Journal of Information Science, 21 (1995) 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Spiegel-Rösing, Ina,Wissenschaftsentwicklung und Wissenschaftssteuerung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Spiegel-Rösing, Ina andDerek de Solla Price,Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Sage, London/Beverly Hills, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Stichweh, Rudolf,Zur Entstehung des modernen Systems wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. Physik in Deutschland, 1740–1890. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Stichweh, Rudolf, Self-organization and autopoiesis in the development of modern science. In:Wolfgang Krohn, Günter Küppers, andHelga Nowotny (Eds),Selforganization: Portrait of a scientific revolution, Kluwer, Dordrecht, etc., 1990, pp. 195–207.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Van Raan, Anthony F. J. (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Weber, Max,Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Mohr, Tübingen, 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Weinberg, Bella H., The earliest Hebrew citation indexes,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (1997) 318–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. White, Hywel D., Daniel Sullivan, andEdward J. Barboni, The interdependence of theory and experiment in revolutionary science: The case of parity violation,Social Studies of Science, 9 (1979) 303–327.

    Google Scholar 

  89. White, Howard D. andBelver C. Griffith, Author co-citation: a literature measure of intellectual structure,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 12 (1981) 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Whitley, Richard D.,The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Woolgar, Steve, Beyond the citation debate: towards a sociology of measurement technologies and their use in science policies,Science and Public Policy, 18 (1991) 319–326.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Wouters, Paul, Citation cycles and peer review cycles,Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Wouters, Paul,The Citation Culture. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (1998, forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Wouters, Paul andLoet Leydesdorff, Has Price's dream come true: Is scientometrics a hard science?Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 193–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Zuckerman, Harriet, Citation analysis and the complex problem of intellectual influence,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Zuckerman, Harriet andRobert K. Merton, Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system,Minerva, 9 (1971) 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science and Technology Dynamics, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV, Amsterdam, (The Netherlands)

    L. Leydesdorff

Authors
  1. L. Leydesdorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leydesdorff, L. Theories of citation?. Scientometrics 43, 5–25 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458391

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458391

Keywords

Search

Navigation