Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal Hoax: A study in citation identities

Scientometrics

Volumn 60, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 93-120

  White, Howard D ^a  

^a Drexel University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4243169128     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027313.91401.9b     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. BALDI, S. (1998), Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: A network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63: 829-846.
2. BLOOR, D. (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3. BROOKS, T. A. (1984), Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36: 223-229.
4. BROOKS, T. A. (1986), Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37: 34-36.
5. BROWN, J. R. (2001), Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. COLE, J. R., COLE, S. (1973), Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. COLE, S. (1992), Making Science; Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. COZZENS, S. E. (1989), What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model. Scientometrics, 15: 437-447.
9. CRONIN, B., SHAW, D. (2002), Identity-creators and image-makers: Using citation analysis and thick description to put authors in their place. Scientometrics, 54: 31-49.
10. EDGE, D. (1979), Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical review. History of Science, 17: 103-134.
11. EDITORS OF LINGUA FRANCA. (2000), The Sokal Hoax; The Sham that Shook the Academy. Lingua Franca Books. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
12. GARFIELD, E., PUDOVKIN, A. I., ISTOMIN, V. S. (2003), Why do we need algorithmic historiography? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54: 400-412.
13. GIERYN, T. (2003), Sociology of Science. http://www.indiana.edu/-deanfac/ blspr03/soc/soc_s660_3954.html
14. GILBERT, G. N. (1977), Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7: 113-122.
15. GRIFFITH, B. C. (1990), Understanding science: Studies of communication and information. In: C. L. BORGMAN (Ed.), Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 31-45.
16. HAGSTROM, W. O. (1965), The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books.
17. HESS, D. J. (1997), Science Studies; An Advanced Introduction. New York: New York University Press.
18. HOERMAN, H. L., NOWICKE, C. E. (1995), Secondary and tertiary citing: A study of reference behavior in the literature of citation analysis deriving from the Ortega hypothesis of Cole and Cole. Library Quarterly, 65: 415-434.
19. KAPLAN, N. (1965), The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation, 16: 179-184.
20. KNORR-CETINA, K. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
21. LANGHAM, T. (1995), Consistency in referencing. Journal of Documentation, 51: 360-369.
22. LATOUR, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. LATOUR, B., WOOLGAR, S. (1979), Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24. LAW, J., WILLIAMS, R. J. (1982), Putting facts together: A study in scientific persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 12: 535-558.
25. LIU, M. (1993), The complexities of citation practice: A review of citation studies. Journal of Documentation, 49: 370-408.
26. LLOYD, C. (1997), I was Michel Foucault's love slave. Salon. http://www.salon.com/feb97/loveslave970210.html
27. LUUKKONEN, T. (1990), Citations in the Rhetorical, Reward, and Communication Systems of Science. PhD dissertation. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.
28. LUUKKONEN, T. (1997), Why has Latour s theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 38: 27-37.
29. MACROBERTS, M. H., MACROBERTS, B. R. (1987), Testing the Ortega hypothesis: Facts and artifacts. Scientometrics, 12: 293-295.
30. MACROBERTS, M. H., MACROBERTS, B. R. (1996), Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36: 435-444.
31. MCINNES, R. G., SYMES, D. (1988), David Riesman and the concept of bibliographic citation. College & Research Libraries, 12: 240-250.
32. MERTON, R. K. (1942), Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1: 115-126.
33. MERTON, R. K. (1957), Priorities in scientific discoveries. American Sociological Review, 22: 635-659.
34. MERTON, R. K. (1968), The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159 (5): 56-63.
35. MERTON, R. K. (1979), Foreword to E. Garfield, Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science Technology, and Humanities. New York: Wiley. v-ix.
36. MERTON, R. K. (1988), The Matthew Effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79: 606-623.
37. MITROFF, I. I. (1974), The Subjective Side of Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
38. NICOLAISEN, J. (2003), The social act of citing: Towards new horizons in citation theory. Proceedings, American Society for Information Science and Technology, 40: 12-20.
39. PAGLIA, C. (1999), Butler vs. Nussbaum: When poststructuralist feminists begin to attack each other, the end of the PC dynasty is near. Salon. http://www.salon.com/it/col/pagl/1999/02/24pagl.html
40. POTTER J. (1996), Representing Reality; Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage.
41. Scientometrics. (1987), Volume 12(5-6: 293-353) presented a controversy on citation and the Ortega hypothesis in which 13 papers responded to MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 1987.
42. SOKAL, A. D. (1996), Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46/47: 217-252.
43. SOKAL, A., BRICMONT, J. (1998), Fashionable Nonsense; Postmodern Intellectuals Abuse of Science. New York: Picador USA.
44. STORER, N. W. (1966), The Social System of Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
45. THORNE, F. C. (1977), The Citation Index Another case of spurious validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33: 1157-1161.
46. WHITE, H. D. (2000), Toward ego-centered citation analysis. In: B. CRONIN, H. B. ATKINS (Eds), The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: Information Today. pp. 475 496.
47. WHITE, H. D. (2001a), Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52: 87-108.
48. WHITE, H. D. (2001b), Author-centered bibliometrics through CAMEOs: Characterizations automatically made and edited online. Scientometrics, 51: 607-637.
49. WHITE, H. D. (2003), Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54: 423-434.
50. WHITE, H. D. (2004), Citation analysis and discourse analysis revisited. Applied Linguistics, 25: 89-116.
51. WHITE, H. D., MCCAIN, K. W. (1998), Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49: 327-355.
52. WILLIS, E. (1996), My Sokaled life; Or, revenge of the nerds. In: EDITORS OF LINGUA FRANCA, The Sokal Hoax; The Sham that Shook the Academy. Lingua Franca Books. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 133-138.
53. WOOLGAR, S. (1988), Science: The Very Idea. London: Tavistock.
54. ZUCKERMAN, H. (1987), Citation analysis and the complex problem of intellectual influence. Scientometrics, 12: 329-338.
55. ZUCKERMAN, H. (1988), The sociology of science. In: N. SMELSER (Ed.), Handbook of Sociology. Newbury Park: Sage. 511-574.