Citation Impact Categorization: For Scientific Literature

Citation counting is a method to compute impact factor in scientific literature, many authors have criticized this only counting methods because they consider all citation as equal. If a paper's reputation is simply evaluated according to the number of its citations, then incomplete, incorrect or controversial articles may be promoted regardless of their relevance. We developed an annotated corpus with our own scheme and then classify citation function and polarity. Afterwards, in this paper, we present an approach to categorize citation impact using these data and other information extracted from a paper. We compared our results with responses from a citation impact survey addressed to authors. Author's feedback closely correlates with our outcomes.

[1]  Filippo Radicchi,et al.  In science “there is no bad publicity”: Papers criticized in comments have high scientific impact , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[2]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Research grants: Conform and be funded , 2012, Nature.

[3]  S. Grillner,et al.  Impacting our young , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  K. Hyland,et al.  Hedging in scientific research articles , 1998 .

[5]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Interpreting maps of science using citation context sentiments: a preliminary investigation , 2011, Scientometrics.

[6]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Intra-textual variation within medical research articles , 2014 .

[7]  John C. Platt,et al.  Fast training of support vector machines using sequential minimal optimization, advances in kernel methods , 1999 .

[8]  Gertrud Herlach,et al.  Can retrieval of information from citation indexes be simplified? Multiple mention of a reference as a characteristic of the link between cited and citing article , 1978, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[9]  J. Ioannidis.  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[10]  M. H. MacRoberts,et al.  The Negational Reference: or the Art of Dissembling , 1984 .

[11]  Awais Athar,et al.  Sentiment analysis of scientific citations , 2014 .

[12]  Luciana B Sollaci,et al.  The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. , 2004, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[13]  Dong-Jin Kim,et al.  On exploiting content and citations together to compute similarity of scientific papers , 2013, CIKM.

[14]  Peter Kokol,et al.  Sentiment in Science - A Case Study of CBMS Contributions in Years 2003 to 2007 , 2008, 2008 21st IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems.

[15]  Michael Schreiber,et al.  A case study of the arbitrariness of the h-index and the highly-cited-publications indicator , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[16]  José Manuel Gómez Soriano,et al.  Esquema de anotación para categorización de citas en bibliografía científica , 2015, Proces. del Leng. Natural.

[17]  V. Cano,et al.  Citation behavior: Classification, utility, and location , 1989, JASIS.

[18]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Citation context analysis and aging patterns of journal articles in molecular genetics , 1989, Scientometrics.

[19]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[20]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[21]  Chandra G. Prabha,et al.  Some aspects of citation behavior: A pilot study in business administration , 1983, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[22]  John Ziman,et al.  An Introduction To Science Studies , 1984 .

[23]  Björn Brembs,et al.  Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..