IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom‐cited influences


  • M.H. MacRoberts
  • B.R. MacRoberts


To determine influences on the production of a scientific article, the content of the article must be studied. We examined articles in biogeography and found that most of the influence is not cited, specific types of articles that are influential are cited while other types of that also are influential are not cited, and work that is “uncited” and “seldom cited” is used extensively. As a result, evaluative citation analysis should take uncited work into account.

Suggested Citation

  • M.H. MacRoberts & B.R. MacRoberts, 2010. "Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom‐cited influences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:61:y:2010:i:1:p:1-12
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.21228

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


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

    Cited by:

    1. Jianhua Hou & Jiantao Ye, 2020. "Are uncited papers necessarily all nonimpact papers? A quantitative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1631-1662, August.
    2. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Mary Kwasny & Kristi L Holmes, 2018. "Academic information on Twitter: A user survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Christin Katharina Kreutz & Premtim Sahitaj & Ralf Schenkel, 2020. "Evaluating semantometrics from computer science publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2915-2954, December.
    5. Isabel Bernal, 2013. "Open Access and the Changing Landscape of Research Impact Indicators: New Roles for Repositories," Publications, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(2), pages 1-22, July.
    6. Andrey Lovakov & Elena Agadullina, 2019. "Bibliometric analysis of publications from post-Soviet countries in psychological journals in 1992–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1157-1171, May.
    7. Lutz Bornmann & Félix de Moya Anegón & Loet Leydesdorff, 2010. "Do Scientific Advancements Lean on the Shoulders of Giants? A Bibliometric Investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-6, October.
    8. Jianhua Hou & Jiantao Ye, 0. "Are uncited papers necessarily all nonimpact papers? A quantitative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 0, pages 1-32.
    9. Mike Thelwall, 2019. "The influence of highly cited papers on field normalised indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 519-537, February.
    10. Zewen Hu & Angela Lin & Peter Willett, 2019. "Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Devabhaktuni Srikrishna & Marc A Coram, 2011. "Using Noun Phrases for Navigating Biomedical Literature on Pubmed: How Many Updates Are We Losing Track of?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-11, September.
    12. Sibele Fausto & Fabio A Machado & Luiz Fernando J Bento & Atila Iamarino & Tatiana R Nahas & David S Munger, 2012. "Research Blogging: Indexing and Registering the Change in Science 2.0," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-10, December.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:bla:jamist:v:61:y:2010:i:1:p:1-12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.