Scientometrics

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 305–316 | Cite as

Why authors think their papers are highly cited

  • Henry Small
Article

Abstract

A survey of authors of highly cited papers in 22 fields was undertaken in connection with a new bibliometric resource called Essential Science Indicators (ESI®). Authors were asked to give their opinions on why their papers are highly cited. They generally responded by describing specific internal, technical aspects of their work, relating them to external or social factors in their fields of study. These self-perceptions provide clues to the factors that lead to high citation rate, and the importance of the interaction between internal and external factors. Internal factors are revealed by the technical terminology used to describe the work, and how it is situated in the problem domain for the field. External factors are revealed by a different vocabulary describing how the work has been received within the field, or its implications for a wider audience. Each author's response regarding a highly cited work was analyzed on four dimensions: the author perception of its novelty, utility, significance, and interest. A co-occurrence analysis of the dimensions revealed that interest, the most socially based dimension, was most often paired with one of the other more internal dimensions, suggesting a synergy between internal and external factors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burrell, Q. L. (2003), Predicting future citation behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5): 372-378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campanario, J. M. (1993), Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly-cited. Social Studies of Science, 23(2): 342-362.Google Scholar
  3. Campanario, J. M. (1996), Using Citation Classics to study the incidence of serendipity in scientific discovery. Scientometrics, 37(1): 3-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cano, V., Lind, N. C. (1991), Citation life cycles of ten Citation Classics. Scientometrics, 22(2): 297-312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Case, D. O., Higgins, G. M. (2000), How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7): 635-645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chubin, D. E., Porter, A. L., Rossini, F. A. (1984), Citation classics analysis: an approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 35(6): 360-368.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Furberg, C. D., et al. (2002), Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). Journal of the America Medical Association, 288(23): 2981-2997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfield, E. (1981), Citation Classics: four years of the human side of science. Current Contents, 22 (1 June 1981), 5-16. Reprinted in: Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 5 (Philadelphia: ISI Press), pp. 123–134.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, G. N., Mulkay, M. (1984), Opening Pandora.s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists.' Discourse. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  11. GlÄnzel, W. (1997), On the possibility and reliability of predictions based on stochastic citation processes. Scientometrics, 40(3): 481-492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolpin, D. W., Furlong, E. T., Meyer, M. T., Thurman, E. M., Zaugg, S. D., Barber, L. B., Buxtonet, H. T. (2002), Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US streams, 1999–2000: a national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(6): 1202-1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu, M. (1993), Progress in documentation: the complexities of citation practice — a review of citation studies. Journal of Documentation, 49(4): 370-408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacRoberts, M. H., MacRoberts, B. R. (1996), Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3): 435-444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merton, R. K. (1957), Priorities in scientific discovery. American Sociological Review, 22(6): 635-659. Reprinted in: The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 286–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moravcsik, M. J., Murugesan, P. (1975), Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science, 5(1): 86-92.Google Scholar
  17. Pendlebury, D. A. (1991), Science, citation and funding. Science, 251(5000): 1410-1411.Google Scholar
  18. Small, H. (1978), Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3): 327-340.Google Scholar
  19. Small, H. (1982), Citation context analysis. Progress in Communication, 3: 287-310.Google Scholar
  20. Stent, G. S. (1972), Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227(6): 84-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. White, H. D. (2001), Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(2): 87-108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publisher/Akadémiai Kiadó 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Small
    • 1
  1. 1.Thomson ISIPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations