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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
The logistic regression equations used were p1 = 1/(1+Exp(3.424 − 0.216 * [% utility])) where [% utility] is the percentage of citances containing utility words, and p2 = 1/(1+Exp(2.72 − 0.11 * [% method section])) where [% method section] is the percentage of citances appearing in method sections. When either probability p1 or p2 is > 0.5, the paper was designated a method. All other papers were designated non-methods (Small 2018).
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.
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.
Chen, C., & Song, M. (2018). Representing scientific knowledge: The role of uncertainty. London: Springer.
Cole, S. (1992). Making science: Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
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].
Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Nakov, P., Schwartz, A., & Hearst, M. (2004). Citances: Citation sentences for semantic analysis of bioscience text. SIGIR workshop of search and discovery on bioinformatics.
Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons Inc.
Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Small, H. (1977). A co-citation model of a scientific specialty: A longitudinal study of collagen research. Social Studies of Science, 7, 139–166.
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.
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.
Small, H., Tseng, H., & Patek, M. (2017). Discovering discoveries: Identifying biomedical discoveries using citation contexts. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 46–62.
Teetor, P. (2011). R Cookbook. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.
Van Noorden, R., Maher, R. B., & Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top 100 papers. Nature, 514, 550–553.
Virgo, J. A. (1977). A statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers. The Library Quarterly, 47, 415–430.
We thank Mike Patek for parsing of the PubMed Central full text data into data structures suitable for analysis.
About this article
Cite this article
Small, H., Boyack, K.W. & Klavans, R. Citations and certainty: a new interpretation of citation counts. Scientometrics 118, 1079–1092 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03016-z