IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v11y2017i4p989-1002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How is R cited in research outputs? Structure, impacts, and citation standard

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Kai
  • Yan, Erjia
  • Feng, Yuanyuan

Abstract

This paper addresses software citation by analyzing how R and its packages are cited in a sample of PLoS papers. A codebook is developed to support a content analysis of the full-text papers. Our results indicate that the software R and its packages are inconsistently cited, as is the case with other scientific software. The inconsistency derives partly from the variety of citation standards currently used for software, and partly from fact that these standards are not well followed by authors on multiple levels. This work sheds light on the future development of software citation standards, especially given the present landscape of conflicting citation practices. Moreover, our approach furnishes a possible blueprint for dealing with the granularity of software entities in scientific citation: we consider citations of the core R software environment, of specific R packages, and of individual functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Kai & Yan, Erjia & Feng, Yuanyuan, 2017. "How is R cited in research outputs? Structure, impacts, and citation standard," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 989-1002.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:4:p:989-1002
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157717300329
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.
    2. Robert Tomaszewski, 2023. "Visibility, impact, and applications of bibliometric software tools through citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4007-4028, July.
    3. Li, Kai & Chen, Pei-Ying & Yan, Erjia, 2019. "Challenges of measuring software impact through citations: An examination of the lme4 R package," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 449-461.
    4. Wang, Yuzhuo & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2020. "Using the full-text content of academic articles to identify and evaluate algorithm entities in the domain of natural language processing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    5. Lu Jiang & Xinyu Kang & Shan Huang & Bo Yang, 2022. "A refinement strategy for identification of scientific software from bioinformatics publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3293-3316, June.
    6. Pan, Xuelian & Yan, Erjia & Cui, Ming & Hua, Weina, 2018. "Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: A comparative study of three tools," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 481-493.
    7. Shiwangi Singh & Sanjay Dhir, 2019. "Structured review using TCCM and bibliometric analysis of international cause-related marketing, social marketing, and innovation of the firm," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 16(2), pages 335-347, December.
    8. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Rodrigo Costas, 2021. "Link-based approach to study scientific software usage: the case of VOSviewer," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8153-8186, September.
    9. Li, Kai & Yan, Erjia, 2018. "Co-mention network of R packages: Scientific impact and clustering structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 87-100.
    10. Pan, Xuelian & Yan, Erjia & Cui, Ming & Hua, Weina, 2019. "How important is software to library and information science research? A content analysis of full-text publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 397-406.
    11. Alsudais, Abdulkareem, 2021. "In-code citation practices in open research software libraries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:4:p:989-1002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.