What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior

By Lutz Bornmann, Hans-Dieter Daniel. J. Documentation, 2008

1,509 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fac7e66de0ec1f7283b5b48e55e45263afe55e06

How researchers see this paper

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

In History and Philosophy of Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Citation Analysis with Neural Attention Models (2016, background): “The classiﬁcation schemes are typically complex, containing multiple overlapping categories ranging from three to 35 (Bornmann and Daniel, 2008).”
Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016) (2018, background): “Since Jorge Hirsch (2005) proposed the h-index, is has drawn increasingly higher attention by researchers, among which Egghe (2006), Jin et al. (2007), Bornmann and Daniel (2008), Bornmann et al. (2011), and Waltman and Van Eck (2012a) have a relatively large inﬂuence.”
Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2017, background): “(Bornmann & Daniel, 2008), and a study of the universality of citation distributions (Radicchi, Journal of Data and Information Science Vol. 2 No. 2, 2017 26 Expert Review Journal of Data and Information Science Fortunato, & Castellano, 2008).”
Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019, background): “We refer to Bornmann and Daniel (2008) and Nicolaisen (2007) for extensive overviews of this literature.”
Algorithmic stemmers or morphological analysisq An evaluation (2009, background): “As many studies have already shown, the values expected for citation rates of publications are dependent on the discipline ( Bornmann & Daniel, 2008c ): Publications”
A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication? (2011, methodology): “Using the publication and citation data for each Chemical Abstracts section, reference values were set in order to allow comparisons, on a common scale, of the citation counts of the manuscripts accepted by ACIE or rejected but then published elsewhere and assigned by Chemical Abstracts Service to i”
Paradigms in accounting research: A view from North America (2010, background): “But for that purpose, they are a crude proxy, at best (e.g., see Bornmann and Daniel, 2008; Lindsey, 1988; Thomas, 1980).”
Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics (2014, background): “Furthermore, there are numerous different reasons why scientists cite a publication – and they are not always related to intellectual influence (Bornmann & Daniel, 2008).”
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2015, background): “Furthermore, this review also does not cover literature on the meaning of citations (Bornmann & Daniel, 2008; Nicolaisen, 2007), literature on the practical application of citation impact indicators in the context of research evaluation, and literature on the correlation between citation impact…”
Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008 (2012, background): “…the field), impact factor appears to be the increasingly dominant standard by which research funding decisions, fellowship awards, leadership position appointments, and other assessments of value are made in psychological research (Bornmann & Daniel, 2008; Foley & Della Sala, 2010; O’Connor, 2010).”
Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns (2015, background): “Subsequently, in the natural and medical sciences, bibliometric indicators are generally recognized as indicators of scientific activity and impact, despite continuous debates on their validity and usefulness in a research evaluation context [16 – 19].”