Most citation analyses are based on references taken from two or three source journals. There are good theoretical reasons for believing that these may not be representative of all references. In the social science citation analyses carried out as part of the DISISS programme, references were collected from 140 journals, including forty‐seven drawn at random from a comprehensive list, and also from 148 monographs. Analyses of references drawn from high ranking and randomly selected journals showed differences in date distribution, forms of material cited and rank order of journals cited. Analyses of references drawn from journals and monographs showed differences, some of them large, in date distributions, forms of material cited, subject self‐citation and citations beyond the social sciences, and countries of publication cited. These differences may be peculiar to the social sciences, but any citation analyses that are based on only a limited number and type of sources without specific justification must be regarded with suspicion.
[1]
Paul W. Hamelman,et al.
Toward a cost/utility model for social science periodicals
,
1972
.
[2]
Maurice B. Line,et al.
The structure of social science literature as shown by a large-scale citation analysis
,
1981
.
[3]
S. A. Roberts,et al.
CLOSSS (Check List of Social Science Serials): a Machine‐readable Data Base of Social Science Serials
,
1971
.
[4]
E Brodman,et al.
Choosing Physiology Journals.
,
1944,
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.
[5]
B. Vickery,et al.
SOCIAL SCIENCE LITERATURE USE IN THE UK AS INDICATED BY CITATIONS
,
1969
.