A quantitative exploration on reasons for citing articles from the perspective of cited authors

Citation is regarded as one of the “norms of science” (Merton in Am Sociol Rev 22(6):635–659, 1957) and is deeply researched by the field of scientometrics. The motivations authors have for citing one another are considered significant and have been the subject of extensive qualitative research such as content analysis, questionnaires, and interviews of citing authors. However, the existing qualitative studies have covered a limited number of samples. To expand the dataset, this paper proposes a quantitative method applied to detecting citation reasons from the angle of citation networks and the attributes of cited authors, including their publication count (the number of single-authored publications, collaborative and first-authored publications as well as collaborative but non-first-authored publications, and number of whole publications), citation count, research topic interests, and gender. By applying the Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs), the current study revealed that authors in the field of information retrieval tend to cite those with more single-authored, collaborative and first-authored, and collaborative but not first-authored publications. Besides, in this field, the number of publications, similar topical domains, and same gender are proven to be significantly favorable in selecting references in our experiment.

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

[2]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Research Collaboration and Team Science , 2014 .

[3]  M. Newman,et al.  Why social networks are different from other types of networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science , 2014, Scientometrics.

[5]  Joon-Oh Park,et al.  The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2011 .

[6]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Research Collaboration and Team Science: A State-of-the-Art Review and Agenda , 2014 .

[7]  Derek de Solla Price,et al.  A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes , 1976, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[8]  E. Garfield.  Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[9]  D. Cases,et al.  How can we investigate citation behavior?: a study of reasons for citing literature in communication , 2000 .

[10]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[11]  E. Garfield,et al.  Can Citation Indexing Be Automated ? , 1964 .

[12]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior , 2008, J. Documentation.

[13]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication , 1984 .

[14]  Robert J. Silverman,et al.  Higher education as a maturing field? Evidence from referencing practices , 1985 .

[15]  Hayder Radha,et al.  Transitivity matrix of social network graphs , 2012, 2012 IEEE Statistical Signal Processing Workshop (SSP).

[16]  Z. Neda,et al.  Measuring preferential attachment in evolving networks , 2001, cond-mat/0104131.

[17]  E GARFIELD,et al.  Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. , 2006, Science.

[18]  Daren Yu,et al.  Effect of the age of papers on the preferential attachment in citation networks , 2009 .

[19]  G. Gilbert.  Referencing as Persuasion , 1977 .

[20]  Ulf Sandström,et al.  Research institutes and universities : Does collaboration pay? , 2005 .

[21]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  An author co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis , 2014 .

[22]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[23]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: III. Valued relations , 1999 .

[24]  Thomas Boyer-Kassem,et al.  Scientific Collaboration: Do Two Heads Need to Be More than Twice Better than One? , 2015, Philosophy of Science.

[25]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[26]  Vetle I. Torvik,et al.  Ethnea -- an instance-based ethnicity classifier based on geo-coded author names in a large-scale bibliographic database , 2016 .

[27]  J. McDowell,et al.  THE EFFECT OF GENDER‐SORTING ON PROPENSITY TO COAUTHOR: IMPLICATIONS FOR ACADEMIC PROMOTION , 1992 .

[28]  Peter Erlandson,et al.  A taxonomy of motives to cite , 2014, Social studies of science.

[29]  Garry Robins,et al.  An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[30]  Anthony F J van Raan,et al.  Bibliometric Analysis of Psychotherapy Research: Performance Assessment and Position in the Journal Landscape , 2003, Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research.

[31]  Dashun Wang,et al.  The time dimension of science: Connecting the past to the future , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[32]  S. Milojevic.  Modes of collaboration in modern science: Beyond power laws and preferential attachment , 2010 .

[33]  Melvin Weinatoek.  Citation Indexes , .

[34]  Kapseon Kim,et al.  The motivation for citing specific references by social scientists in Korea: The phenomenon of co-existing references , 2004, Scientometrics.

[35]  Mary Ellen Soper.  Characteristics and Use of Personal Collections , 1976, The Library Quarterly.

[36]  Peng Wang,et al.  Closure, connectivity and degree distributions: Exponential random graph (p*) models for directed social networks , 2009, Soc. Networks.

[37]  Francis Narin,et al.  The adequacy of the science citation index (SCI) as an indicator of international scientific activity , 1981, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[38]  Ruoming Jin,et al.  A Topic Modeling Approach and Its Integration into the Random Walk Framework for Academic Search , 2008, 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[39]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[40]  P. Pattison.  LOGIT MODELS AND LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS FOR SOCIAL NETWORKS: I. AN INTRODUCTION TO MARKOV GRAPHS AND p* STANLEY WASSERMAN UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS , 1996 .

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

[42]  T. Brooks.  Evidence of complex citer motivations , 1986, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[43]  M. Newman.  Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[44]  S. Cozzens.  Comparing the Sciences: Citation Context Analysis of Papers from Neuropharmacology and the Sociology of Science , 1985 .

[45]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[46]  Daren Yu,et al.  Measuring the preferential attachment mechanism in citation networks , 2008 .

[47]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996-2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[48]  Steven Stack,et al.  Gender, Children and Research Productivity , 2004 .

[49]  Ying Ding,et al.  Understanding scientific collaboration: Homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment , 2018, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[50]  Qi Yu,et al.  Predicting Co-Author Relationship in Medical Co-Authorship Networks , 2014, PloS one.

[51]  Michelle Hendley.  Citation Behavior of Undergraduate Students: A Study of History, Political Science, and Sociology Papers , 2012 .

[52]  Shi Li,et al.  Detecting latent referential articles based on their vitality performance in the latest 2 years , 2017, Scientometrics.

[53]  Daryl E. Chubin,et al.  Content Analysis of References: Adjunct or Alternative to Citation Counting? , 1975 .

[54]  Ben-Ami Lipetz,et al.  Improvement of the selectivity of citation indexes to science literature through inclusion of citation relationship indicators , 1965 .

[55]  S. Baldi.  Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations : A network-analytic model , 1998 .

[56]  Qinke Peng,et al.  Two citation-based indicators to measure latent referential value of papers , 2016, Scientometrics.

[57]  R. Merton.  Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. , 1957 .

[58]  E. B. Duncan,et al.  Qualified Citation Indexing: Its Relevance to Educational Technology. , 1981 .

[59]  S. Lawrence.  Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact , 2001, Nature.

[60]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Random thoughts on citationology its theory and practice , 1998, Scientometrics.

[61]  Yang Song,et al.  An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications , 2015, WWW.

[62]  Mengxiong Liu,et al.  A study of citing motivation of Chinese scientists , 1993, J. Inf. Sci..

[63]  Peng Wang,et al.  Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[64]  E. Garfield.  Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. 1955. , 1955, International journal of epidemiology.

[65]  P. Gross,et al.  COLLEGE LIBRARIES AND CHEMICAL EDUCATION. , 1927, Science.

[66]  Ying Ding,et al.  Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem , 2010, Inf. Process. Manag..