Reward or persuasion? The battle to define the meaning of a citation

Learned Publishing

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 5-11

  Davis, Philip M ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149337099     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315108X378712     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Akrich, M. The de-scription of technical objects. In W.E. Bijker and J. Law (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1992, pp. 205-24. http://hdl.handle.net/ 2027/heb.01128
2. Kline, R. and Pinch, T. 1996. Users as agents of technological change: the social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37: 763-95.
3. Garfield, E. 1955. Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122: 108-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
4. Garfield, E., Sher, I.H. and Torpie, R.J. The Use of Citation Data in Writing the History of Science. Philadelphia, Institute for Scientific Information, 1964. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/ useofcitdatawritinghistofsci.pdf
5. Garfield, E. 1970. Citation indexing for studying science. Nature, 227: 669-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/227669a0
6. Garfield, E. 1972. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178: 471-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471
7. Garfield, E. 1979. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1: 359-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306
8. Garfield, E., Malin, M.V. and Small, H. Citation data as science indicators. In Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R.K. Merton, A. Thackray and H. Zuckerman (eds), Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators. New York, Wiley, 1978, p. 354. http://www.garfield.library. upenn.edu/essays/v6p580y1983.pdf
9. King, D.A. 2004. The scientific impact of nations: what different countries get for their research spending. Nature, 430: 311-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/430311a
10. May, R.M. 1997. The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275: 793-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5301.793
11. Price, D.J. de S. 1965. Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149: 510-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510
12. Small, H. 1973. Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24: 265-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
13. Cronin, B. The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication. London, Taylor Graham, 1984, p. 103.
14. Weinstock, M. Citation indexes. In A. Kent and H. Lancour (eds), Encyclopedia of Library & Information Science, Vol. 5, pp. 16-40. New York, Marcel Dekker, 1971.
15. Merton, R.K. 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1: 115-26.
16. Hagstrom, W.O. The Scientific Community. New York, Basic Books, 1965, p. 304.
17. Meadows, A.J. Communication in Science. London, Butterworths, 1974, p. 248.
18. Franck, G. 1999. Scientific communication - a vanity fair? Science, 286: 53-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5437.53
19. Kaplan, N. 1965. The norms of citation behavior: prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation, 16: 179-84.
20. Merton, R.K. 1988. The Matthew Effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79: 606-23.
21. Diamond, A.M. 1986. What is a citation worth? Journal of Human Resources, 21:200-15.
22. Lindsey, D. The Scientific Publication System in Social Science. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1978, p. 169.
23. Hicks, D. and Potter, J. 1991. Sociology of scientific knowledge: a reflexive citation analysis or science disciplines and disciplining science. Social Studies of Science, 21: 459-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 030631291021003003
24. Tainer, J.A. 1991. Science, citation, and funding. Science, 251: 1408-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.2006414
25. Garfield, E. and Welljams-Dorof, A. 1992. Citation data: their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluation and policy-making. Science and Public Policy, 19: 321-7. http://www.garfield.library.upenn. edu/papers/sciandpubpolv19(5)p321y1992.html
26. Cole, J.R. and Cole, S. 1971. Measuring the quality of sociological research. American Sociologist, 6: 23-9.
27. Cole, J.R. and Cole, S. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973, p. 283.
28. Hamilton, D.P. 1990. Publishing by - and for? - the numbers. Science, 250: 1331-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.2255902
29. Moravcsik, M.J. and Murugesan, P. 1975. Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science, 5: 86-92.
30. Chubin, D.E. and Moitra, S.D. 1975. Content analysis of references: adjunct or alternative to citation counting? Social Studies of Science, 5: 423-41.
31. Brooks, T.A. 1985. Private acts and public objects: an investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36: 223-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630360402
32. Gilbert, G.N. 1977. Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7: 113-22.
33. Cronin, B. The Scholar's Courtesy: The Role of Acknowledgement in the Primary Communication Process. London, Taylor Graham, 1995, p. 124.
34. Latour, B. Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1987, p. 274.
35. Brooks, T.A. 1986. Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37: 34-6. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/asi.4630370106
36. Stewart, J.A. 1983. Achievement and ascriptive processes in the recognition of scientific articles. Social Forces, 62: 166-89.
37. Baldi, S. 1998. Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: a networkanalytic model. American Sociological Review, 63: 829-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657504
38. van Dalen, H.P. and Henkens, K. 2001. What makes a scientific article influential? The case of demographers. Scientometrics, 50: 455-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010510831718
39. Cozzens, S. E. 1989. What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model. Scientometrics 15: 437-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02017064
40. Merton, R.K. 1968. The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159: 56-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
41. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF02461121