Skip to main content
Log in

Examining the use of supportive and contrasting citations in different disciplines: a brief study using Scite (scite.ai) data

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study uses citation data from the Scite (scite.ai) web tool to determine which disciplines frequently use citations that either support or contrast previous works. The raw citation type data provided by the scite.ai tool is sorted into categories of “mentioning,” “supporting,” and “contrasting” to identify the disciplines that commonly use supporting citations and those that frequently use contrasting or combative citations. This data from scite.ai was aligned to major academic disciplines, as defined by Web of Science. Medicine has the most combative citations, while mathematics has the least. However, it is important to note that the “combativeness” of disciplines should not be seen as a negative. In fields like medicine, where flawed hypotheses or study findings can have serious consequences, it is necessary to challenge problematic ideas and findings. This study adds a new dimension of depth by not only examining the frequency of mentioning, supporting, and contrasting citation, but also employing and evaluating the efficacy of the scite.ai tool for this purpose.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Bordignon, F. (2020). Self-correction of science: A comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review. Scientometrics, 124(2), 1225–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordignon, F. (2022). Critical citations in knowledge construction and citation analysis: From paradox to definition. Scientometrics, 127, 959–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarivate Analytics. (2022). Web of Science core collection help. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_research_areas_easca.html

  • Lamers, W. S., Boyack, K., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., & Murray, D. (2021). Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature. eLife, 10, e72737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, B. D. (2020). Do “interdisciplinary” disciplines have an interdisciplinary impact?: Examining citations between educational technology and library and information science journals. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5103–5116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • scite.ai. (2022). Scite data and services. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://scite.ai/data-and-services

  • Vuong, Q. (2019). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Du, Y., & Yan, E. (2018). Citation context and the strength of scientific evidence. PLoS ONE, 13(6), e0197967.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Scite tool can be accessed at scite.ai.

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brady Lund.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest or competing interests to report.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lund, B., Shamsi, A. Examining the use of supportive and contrasting citations in different disciplines: a brief study using Scite (scite.ai) data. Scientometrics 128, 4895–4900 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04781-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04781-8

Keywords

Navigation