Citation analysis: The counting house

By D. Adam. Nature, 2002

436 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time (2016, methodology): “Scholars of knowledge have long shown interest in citation analysis as a method for understanding academic professions (e.g., Adam 2002; de Solla Price 1965; MacRoberts and MacRoberts 1989; Newman 2001).”
Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? (2005, background): “…is probably represented by Finland, “the only country in which the journal impact factor has been canonized in the law of the land,” implying that the publication of just one paper in a higher impact journal can boost the budget of a university hospital by about US$ 7000 (ADAM, 2002: p. 727).”
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013, background): “…public knowledge for quite some time now that removing editorials and News-and-Views articles from the denominator (so called “frontmatter”) can dramatically alter the resulting IF (Moed and Van Leeuwen, 1995, 1996; Baylis et al., 1999; Garfield, 1999; Adam, 2002; Editorial, 2005; Hernán, 2009).”
Publication bias and merit in ecology (2007, background): “Increasingly, total number of publications and citation frequency are metrics widely used in ecology to evaluate the merit of science and of scientists (Adam 2002).”