sofs.org.ua › About us › Archive › 2023 › №3(121) › 1.3

1.3

SCIENTIFIC CITATION: HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE

T.О. YAROSHENKO 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2985-2333
A.G. ZHARINOVA 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3959-1074

1 National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine
2 State Scientific and Technical Library of Ukraine

Nauka naukozn. 2023, 3(121): 41—67
https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2023.03.041 

Section: Scientometrics
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: The role of the citation process as a form of scientific communication in the historical context and in the modern framework of the paradigm of open science is analyzed; the typology and classification of scientific citation are summarized; and the main shortcomings are indicated, in particular, in attempts to evaluate scholars and research based on quantitative indicators of citations. The scientific novelty of the obtained results lies in modern interpretation of the scientific citation theory, including considering the latest trends in contextual citation analysis, modern technologies and services of open science affecting citation analysis and its applications at the macro level. The implementation of the open science paradigm is a current global trend, which includes, in particular, prompt and convenient access to the results and reuse of research data, more active collaboration among researchers. In the process of scientific communication in the global world, an important place is occupied by scientific citation, which analysis allows for not only bibliometric evaluations of researchers, studies, institutions, or even countries or subject areas, but also for conducting a comprehensive analysis of ideas, concepts, innovations, research on social systems of knowledge organization, and even forecasting the science development at the macro level. Modern technologies, tools, services, and standards allow these to be performed. However, citation rates should be treated responsibly in research assessment, maintaining a reasonable balance between qualitative (expert) and quantitative evaluation. The conducted research will allow for the development of the national theoretical base in the fields of bibliometrics and scientometrics and can also be applied to relevant projects, in particular the Open Ukrainian Scientific Citation Index (OUCI).

Keywords: scientific citation, open science, bibliometrics, scientometrics, Science Citation Index, scientific communication, citation database, Open Ukrainian Citation Index.

References

  1. Gross, P., & Gross, E. (1927). College Libraries and Chemical Education. Science, 66 (1713), 385—389. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.66.1713.385
  2. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: from the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
  3. Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C.R. (Eds.) (2015). Scholarly Metrics under the Microscope: from Citation Analysis to Academic Auditing. NJ: Information Today.
  4. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 365—391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
  5. Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff , L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246 (1), 1—19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002
  6. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2015). Foundations of citation analysis. Analysis and Visualization of Citation Networks. Springer International Publishing, 1—20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02291-3_1
  7. Garfield, E., Sher, I.H., & Torpie, R.J. (1964). The Use of Citation Data in Writing the History of Science. Institute for Scientific Information Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0466578
  8. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation Indexing — Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York: John Wiley& Sons.
  9. Cronin, B. (1981). The need for a theory of citing. Journal of Documentation, 37 (1), 16—24. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026703
  10. Cronin, B. (1984). The Citation Process: the Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication. Taylor Graham.
  11. Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C.R. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9445.001.0001
  12. Sugimoto, C.R., & Cronin, B. (Eds.). (2016). Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly communication: a Festschrift in honor of Blaise Cronin. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110308464
  13. Sugimoto, C.R., & Lariviè re, V. (2018). Measuring Research: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780190640118.001.0001
  14. Merton, R.K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. The University of Chicago press.
  15. Baldi, S. (1998). Normative versus Social Constructivist Processes in the Allocation of Citations: A Network-Analytic Model. American Sociological Review, 63 (6), 829—846. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657504
  16. Cano, V. (1989). Citation behavior: Classification, utility, and location. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40 (4), 284—290. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198907)40:43.0.CO;2-Z
  17. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64 (1), 45—80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
  18. Garfield, E. (1962). Can Citation Indexing be Automated? Essays of an Information Scientist, 73 (1), 84—90.
  19. Moravcsik, M.J., & Murugesan, P. (1975). Some Results on the Function and Quality of Citations. Social Studies of Science, 5 (1), 86—92. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277500500106
  20. Chubin, D.E., & Moitra, S.D. (1975). Content Analysis of References: Adjunct or Alternative to Citation Counting? Social Studies of Science, 5 (4), 423—441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277500500403
  21. Voos, H., & Dagaev, K.S. (1976). Are All Citations Equal? Or, Did We Op. Cit. Your Idem? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 1 (6), 19—21.
  22. Anderson, M.H., & Lemken, R.K. (2023). Citation context analysis as a method for conducting rigorous and impactful literature reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 26 (1), 77—106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120969905
  23. Golosovsky, M. (2019). Citation Analysis and Dynamics of Citation Networks. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28169-4
  24. Dobrov, G.M. (1989). Science about Science. Introduction to General Science of Science. Kyiv: Nauk. dumka [in Russian].
  25. Asieiev, H. (2016). Scientometrics, informetrics, bibliometrics: definition and delimitation. Bibliotechnyi visnyk, 2, 3—10 [in Ukrainian].
  26. Boichenko, M., & Zinchenko, V. (2022). Scientometrics, bibliometrics and infometrics: accounting of scientific research and the progress of science from the point of view of the philosophy of global sustainable development strategy. Philosophy of Education, 28 (1), 119—138 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606- 2021-28-1-7
  27. Hlavcheva, Yu.M., Kanishcheva, O.V., & Borysova, N.V. (2019). Survey of informetry methods and technologies. Cybernetics and System Analysis, 56 (3), 182—193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10559-019-00158-z [in Ukrainian].
  28. Kopaniova, V.O. (2020). Library in the environment of digital science: system-integration interaction. Dnipro: Lira-K [in Ukrainian].
  29. Kostenko, L.Y., Zhabin, O.I., Kopaniova, Ye.O., & Symonenko, T.V. (2014). Scientific periodicals of Ukraine and bibliometric study. Kyiv: V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].
  30. Mryhlod, O.I., & Nazarovets, S.A. (2019). Scientometrics and management of scientific activities: once again about the global and the Ukrainian. Visn. Nac. Akad. Nauk Ukr., 9, 81—94. https://doi.org/10.15407/visn2019.09.081 [in Ukrainian].
  31. Symonenko, T.V. (2018). Scientometrics and bibliometrics: terminology issues. «Library. Science. Communication»: the 100th Anniversary of V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine: conference proceedings. Kyiv: V.I.  Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].
  32. Yaroshenko, T., & Yaroshenko, O. (2021). Interdependencies in citation metrics using Dimensions (a case study of two NaUKMA journals). Ukrainian Journal on Library and Information Science, 7, 84—99 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.31866/2616-7654.7.2021.233303
  33. Yaroshenko, T. (2010). Electronic journals in the system of library information resources. Kyiv: Znannia [in Ukrainian].
  34. Wouters, P. (1998). The signs of science. Scientometrics, 41 (1—2), 225—241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457980
  35. Price, D.J. de S. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844
  36. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1998). A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983235
  37. Smith, L.C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30 (1), 83—106.
  38. Borgman, C.L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36 (1), 2—72. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440360102
  39. Boyack, K.W., van Eck, N.J., Colavizza, G., & Waltman, L. (2018). Characterizing in-text citations in scientific articles: A large-scale analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12 (1), 59—73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.11.005
  40. Budi, I., & Yaniasih, Y. (2023). Understanding the meanings of citations using sentiment, role, and citation function classifications. Scientometrics, 128, 735—759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04567-4
  41. Lin, C.-S. (2018). An analysis of citation functions in the humanities and social sciences research from the perspective of problematic citation analysis assumptions. Scientometrics, 116 (2), 797—813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2770-2
  42. Ikram, M.T., & Afzal, M.T. (2019). Aspect based citation sentiment analysis using linguistic patterns for better comprehension of scientific knowledge. Scientometrics, 119, 73—95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03028-9
  43. 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 (4), 265—269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
  44. Moral-Muñoz, J.A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M.J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de la Información, 29 (1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
  45. Moravcsik, M.J. (1973). Measures of scientific growth. Research Policy, 2 (3), 266—275. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(73)90006-1
  46. Zhu, X., Turney, P., Lemire, D., & Vellino, A. (2015). Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (2), 408—427. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1501.06587
  47. Amsterdamska, O., & Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Citations: Indicators of significance? Scientometrics, 15, 449—471. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017065
  48. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43, 5—25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458391
  49. Raan, van T. (2004). Sleeping Beauties in Science. Scientometrics, 59 (3), 467—472. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1
  50. Simkin, M.V., & Roychowdhury, V.P. (2003). Copied citations create renowned papers? arXiv preprint cond-mat/0305150. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/0305150
  51. Yaroshenko, T., Serbin, O., & Yaroshenko, O. (2022). Open Science: the role of universities and libraries in modern changes in scientific communication. Digital Platform: Information Technologies in Sociocultural Sphere, 5 (2), 277—292. https://doi.org/10.31866/2617-796X.5.2.2022.270132 [in Ukrainian].

Full Text (PDF)