Scientometrics

, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp 623–638 | Cite as

Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: library and information science as a case study

Article

Abstract

The investigators studied author research impact using the number of citers per publication an author’s research has been able to attract, as opposed to the more traditional measure of citations. A focus on citers provides a complementary measure of an author’s reach or influence in a field, whereas citations, although possibly numerous, may not reflect this reach, particularly if many citations are received from a small number of citers. In this exploratory study, Web of Science was used to tally citer and citation-based counts for 25 highly cited researchers in information studies in the United States and 26 highly cited researchers from the United Kingdom. Outcomes of the tallies based on several measures, including an introduced ch-index, were used to determine whether differences arise in author rankings when using citer-based versus citation-based counts. The findings indicate a strong correlation between some citation and citer-based measures, but not with others. The findings of the study have implications for the way authors’ research impact may be assessed.

Keywords

Citer analysis Citation analysis Research impact 

References

  1. Adkins, D., & Budd, J. (2006). Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty. Library and Information Science Research, 28, 374–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajiferuke, I. (1991). A probabilistic model for the distribution of authorships. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2000). Collaboration networks in science. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 197–213). Medford, NJ: Information Today.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, T. A. (1985). Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1993). Citation-based auditing of academic performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (2002). Identity-creators and image-makers: Using citation analysis and thick description to put authors in their place. Scientometrics, 54(1), 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dieks, D., & Chang, H. (1976). Differences in impact of scientific publications: Some indices derived from a citation analysis. Social Studies of Science, 6, 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., & Van Hooydonk, G. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 145–157.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (1962). Can citation indexing be automated? Essays of an Information Scientist, 1, 84–90.Google Scholar
  12. Garfield, E., & Sher, I. H. (1963). New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation, 14(3), 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goffman, W. (1966). Mathematical approach to the spread of scientific ideas—The history of mast cell research. Nature, 212, 449–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goffman, W., & Newill, V. A. (1964). Generalization of epidemic theory: An application to the transmission of ideas. Nature, 204, 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by coauthorships? Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science: Measuring what’s measurable rather than what’s valid. Scientometrics, 15(3–4), 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349.Google Scholar
  19. Oppenheim, C. (2007). Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phelan, T. J. (1989). A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics, 45(1), 117–136.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30, 83–106.Google Scholar
  23. Snyder, H., & Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self-citation across disciplines (1980–1989). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 431–435.Google Scholar
  24. Wang, W., Mokhtar, M., & Macaulay, L. (2008). C-index: Trust depth, trust breadth, and a collective trust measurement. In WebScience’08. Retrieved March 24, 2009 from http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/dem/workshops/webscience08/papers/websci08-wang.pdf.
  25. White, H. D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White, M. D., & Wang, P. (1997). A qualitative study of citing behavior: Contributions, criteria, and metalevel documentation concerns. Library Quarterly, 67, 122–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhao, D. Z. (2006). Towards all-author co-citation analysis. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1578–1591.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information and Media StudiesUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.School of Information StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations