Citations and certainty: a new interpretation of citation counts

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    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).

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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].

  8. Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  17. Small, H., Tseng, H., & Patek, M. (2017). Discovering discoveries: Identifying biomedical discoveries using citation contexts. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 46–62.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Virgo, J. A. (1977). A statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers. The Library Quarterly, 47, 415–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Small.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Citations
  • Citances
  • Hedging
  • Uncertainty
  • Biomedicine