Search results

Full text of a document is a rich source of information that can be used to provide meaningful topics. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how to use citation context (CC) in the full text to identify the cited topics and citing topics efficiently and effectively by employing automatic text analysis algorithms.

The authors present two novel topic models, Citation-Context-LDA (CC-LDA) and Citation-Context-Reference-LDA (CCRef-LDA). CC is leveraged to extract the citing text from the full text, which makes it possible to discover topics with accuracy. CC-LDA incorporates CC, citing text, and their latent relationship, while CCRef-LDA incorporates CC, citing text, their latent relationship and reference information in CC. Collapsed Gibbs sampling is used to achieve an approximate estimation. The capacity of CC-LDA to simultaneously learn cited topics and citing topics together with their links is investigated. Moreover, a topic influence measure method based on CC-LDA is proposed and applied to create links between the two-level topics. In addition, the capacity of CCRef-LDA to discover topic influential references is also investigated.

The results indicate CC-LDA and CCRef-LDA achieve improved or comparable performance in terms of both perplexity and symmetric Kullback–Leibler (sKL) divergence. Moreover, CC-LDA is effective in discovering the cited topics and citing topics with topic influence, and CCRef-LDA is able to find the cited topic influential references.

The automatic method provides novel knowledge for cited topics and citing topics discovery. Topic influence learnt by our model can link two-level topics and create a semantic topic network. The method can also use topic specificity as a feature to rank references.

Co-citation frequency, defined as the number of documents co-citing two articles, is considered as a quantitative, and thus, an efficient proxy of subject relatedness or prestige of the co-cited articles. Despite its quantitative nature, it is found effective in retrieving and evaluating documents, signifying its linkage with the related documents' contents. To better understand the dynamism of the citation network, the present study aims to investigate various content features giving rise to the measure.

The present study examined the interaction of different co-citation features in explaining the co-citation frequency. The features include the co-cited works' similarities in their full-texts, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms, co-citation proximity, opinions and co-citances. A test collection is built using the CITREC dataset. The data were analyzed using natural language processing (NLP) and opinion mining techniques. A linear model was developed to regress the objective and subjective content-based co-citation measures against the natural log of the co-citation frequency.

The dimensions of co-citation similarity, either subjective or objective, play significant roles in predicting co-citation frequency. The model can predict about half of the co-citation variance. The interaction of co-opinionatedness and non-co-opinionatedness is the strongest factor in the model.

It is the first study in revealing that both the objective and subjective similarities could significantly predict the co-citation frequency. The findings re-confirm the citation analysis assumption claiming the connection between the cognitive layers of cited documents and citation measures in general and the co-citation frequency in particular.

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-04-2020-0126.

The present study aims to investigate how textual features, depth of citation treatment, reasons for citation, and relationships between citers and citees predict author‐rated citation importance.

A total of 49 biology and 50 psychology authors assessed the importance, reason for citation, and relationship to the cited author for each cited reference in his or her own recently published empirical article. Participants performed their evaluations on individualized web‐based surveys.

The paper finds that certain textual features, such as citation frequency, citation length, and citation location, as well as author‐stated reasons for citation predicted ratings of importance, but the strength of the relationship often depended on citation features in the article as a whole. The relationship between objective citation features and author‐rated importance also tended to be weaker for self‐citations.

The study sample included authors of relatively long empirical articles with a minimum of 35 cited references. There were relatively few disciplinary differences, which suggests that citation behavior in psychology may be similar to that in natural science disciplines. Future studies should involve authors from other disciplines employing diverse referencing patterns in articles of varying lengths and types.

Findings of the study have enabled a comprehensive, profound level of understanding of citation behaviors of biology and psychology authors. It uncovered a number of unique characteristics in authors' citation evaluations, such as article‐level context effects and rule‐ versus affective‐based judgments. The paper suggests possible implications for developing retrieval algorithms based on automatically predicted importance of cited references.

The purpose of this paper is to present a narrative review of studies on the citing behavior of scientists, covering mainly research published in the last 15 years. Based on the results of these studies, the paper seeks to answer the question of the extent to which scientists are motivated to cite a publication not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of scientific peers, but also for other, possibly non‐scientific, reasons.

The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid‐2005 (approximately 30 studies on citing behavior‐reporting results in about 40 publications).

The general tendency of the results of the empirical studies makes it clear that citing behavior is not motivated solely by the wish to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of colleague scientists, since the individual studies reveal also other, in part non‐scientific, factors that play a part in the decision to cite. However, the results of the studies must also be deemed scarcely reliable: the studies vary widely in design, and their results can hardly be replicated. Many of the studies have methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, there is evidence that the different motivations of citers are “not so different or ‘randomly given’ to such an extent that the phenomenon of citation would lose its role as a reliable measure of impact”.

Given the increasing importance of evaluative bibliometrics in the world of scholarship, the question “What do citation counts measure?” is a particularly relevant and topical issue.

The purpose of this study is to identify the documents which have had the greatest impact on the Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM) articles and to analyze the evolution of the intellectual structure of the journal.

A knowledge‐stock analysis is performed to assess major trends of the JOCM. A bibliometric study is then conducted thanks to citation and co‐citation analysis about the documents which are the most cited by the articles published in the JOCM (between 1995 and 2011).

Through the results of their analysis, the authors: describe the growing stock of knowledge of the JOCM over time; identify the documents having the strongest influence on the JOCM articles; and pinpoint the evolution of the intellectual structure of the journal.

Although the sample of retained articles seems representative of the JOCM publication efforts, the data set presents some limitations. There are also some limits inherent to the research design and to the bibliometric methods. The intention of the present research is to give a quantitative overview of the intellectual evolution of the journal.

Grasping the intellectual development of the JOCM enables researchers and practitioners to better understand how issues are being approached by authors who publish in this journal. It also stimulates the scholarly debate.

This knowledge‐stock and bibliometric study is the first to be concerned with the JOCM.

To ascertain the diffusion and influence of Savolainen's ELIS model and its use as a theoretical and/or methodological basis for research.

A context citation analysis was made of the work where this researcher published his model. Analysis covered the year of publication, the type of work and the subject matter of the citing documents concerned. In-context citations were analysed for their frequency in each citing text, style, location and content cited.

The ELIS model received 18.5 cites/year. 20.2 per cent of them corresponded to papers published in journals in other areas, mainly computer science. The average of cites per paper was 1.8; 64.5 percent of the citing works cited them only once. 60 per cent of the cites were considered essential. Only 13.7 per cent of these cites appear in theory or methods. 37 per cent of the citing documents contained no concept relating to the model.

The method used focuses on the most direct context of a cite (sentence or paragraph), but isolates it from the general context (full document, other documents by the author or their social capital). It has, however, allowed this research issue to be dealt with under laboratory conditions and revealed nuances hidden by the absolute number of cites.

It has become evident that the dissemination and influence of the ELIS model are less than what the total number of cites indicates and that it has scarcely been incorporated into research design. Despite its popularity, it is not being validated and/or refuted by way of empirical data.

This study aims to answer the following questions about humanities graduate students: what are the characteristics of the documents cited in their theses? Where and how do they obtain those citations? Do students use and cite electronic resources? Do students favour electronic resources over paper versions?

The study's participants were 20 humanities graduate students. Following an analysis of the citations in their theses, list‐checking and follow‐up interviews were conducted.

The results showed that these humanities graduate students cited considerably more print materials than electronic resources. Most of the documents cited were supplied by the university library. Only a small proportion of the documents were available in electronic format either from the university library or from the internet. The availability ratio of journals was higher than that of books. Students' acceptance of e‐journals was higher than that of e‐books.

The findings of the study could help researchers and librarians gain a better understanding of how humanities graduate students use electronic resources.

Citation analysis is one of the popular methods employed for identification of core documents and complex relationship between citing and cited documents for a particular scholarly community in a geographical proximity. The present citation study is to understand the information needs, use pattern and use behaviour of library and information science researchers particularly engaged in the field of knowledge organization.

The data relating to all the references appended to the articles during the period under study were collected and tabulated.

Citation analysis of the journal for the period under study reveals that the average number of citations is around 21 per article. The major source of information is books and documents published during the later half of the century (1982‐91). Authors from the USA, UK and Germany are the major contributors to the journal. India is ranked seventh in terms of contributions.

The study undertaken is limited to nine years, i.e. 1993‐2001. The model citation index of the journal is analyzed using the first seven core authors.

Ranking of periodicals helps to identify the core periodicals cited in the journal Knowledge Organization. Ranking of authors is done to know the eminent personalities in the subject, whose work is used by the authors to refine their ideas on the subject or topic.

Model Citation Index for the first seven most cited authors was worked out and it reveals the historical relationship of cited and citing documents. This model citation index can be used to identify, the most cited authors as researchers currently working on special problems, to determine whether a paper has been cited, whether there has been a review of a subject, whether a concept has been applied, a theory confirmed or a method improved.

The use of bibliographic citation is a crucial aspect in the creation and dissemination of information. Numerous studies have been done ranging from simple citation counts to more complex bibliographic coupling studies, and from citation classifications to citation motivation studies. This review focusses on the citation studies that have explored the complexities and the underlying norms of the citation process. The major emphasis is placed upon the studies which have dealt with citation functions, citation quality, citation concepts and citation motivation. The international perspectives of citation practice are also discussed.

The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013.

Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations.

Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline.

Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version.

SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines.

This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.