Advertisement

Citations and certainty: a new interpretation of citation counts

  • Henry SmallEmail author
  • Kevin W. Boyack
  • Richard Klavans
Article

Abstract

We report that the rate of hedging in citing sentences for biomedical papers is inversely related to the citations received by the papers as measured by the number of citances in citing papers. Hedging is often regarded as an expression of uncertainty in rhetorical studies of scientific text. Citing sentences, or citances, are retrieved from the PubMed Central database for papers having 10 or more citances, and the percentage of citances containing hedging words is plotted against the number of citances for the papers, which is closely related to the citation count. Hedging rates are computed separately for method and non-method papers, the latter being more frequently hedged. Rates of hedging are found to be higher for papers with fewer citances, suggesting that the certainty of scientific results is directly related to citation frequency. Similarly, early citations made soon after publication are more hedged than later citations. The implications of this finding for the interpretation of citation counts are discussed, and the directions for future research.

Keywords

Citations Citances Hedging Uncertainty Biomedicine 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mike Patek for parsing of the PubMed Central full text data into data structures suitable for analysis.

References

  1. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyack, K. W., Van Eck, N. J., Colavizza, G., & Waltman, L. (2018). Characterizing in-text citations in scientific articles: A large-scale analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, C., & Song, M. (2018). Representing scientific knowledge: The role of uncertainty. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Cole, S. (1992). Making science: Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. DiMarco, C., Kroon, F. W., & Mercer, R. E. (2006). Using hedges to classify citations in scientific articles. In J. Shanahan, Y. Qu, & J. Wiebe (Eds.), Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 247–263)., The Information Retrieval Series Amsterdam: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4102-0.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garfield, E. (1990). The most-cited papers of all time, SCI 1945–1988. Part 1A. The SCI top 100—Will the Lowry method ever be obliterated? Current Contents, 7, 3–14. February 12, 1990. [Reprinted in: Essays of an information Scientist, Vol. 13 (p. 45). Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press].Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Nakov, P., Schwartz, A., & Hearst, M. (2004). Citances: Citation sentences for semantic analysis of bioscience text. SIGIR workshop of search and discovery on bioinformatics.Google Scholar
  12. Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Small, H. (1977). A co-citation model of a scientific specialty: A longitudinal study of collagen research. Social Studies of Science, 7, 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Small, H. (2018). Characterizing highly cited method and non-method papers using citation contexts: The role of uncertainty. Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Small, H. & Klavans, R. (2011). Identifying scientific breakthroughs by combining co-citation analysis and citation context. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
  17. Small, H., Tseng, H., & Patek, M. (2017). Discovering discoveries: Identifying biomedical discoveries using citation contexts. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Teetor, P. (2011). R Cookbook. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Van Noorden, R., Maher, R. B., & Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top 100 papers. Nature, 514, 550–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Virgo, J. A. (1977). A statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers. The Library Quarterly, 47, 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Small
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin W. Boyack
    • 2
  • Richard Klavans
    • 3
  1. 1.SciTech Strategies, Inc.Bala CynwydUSA
  2. 2.SciTech Strategies, Inc.AlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.SciTech Strategies, Inc.WayneUSA

Personalised recommendations