IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v44y1999i3d10.1007_bf02458496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the holy grail: From citation theory to indicator theories

Author

Listed:
  • P. Wouters

    (University of Amsterdam)

Abstract

A recurring theme in the use of science and technology indicators, as well as in the construction of new ones, is the interpretation of these indicators. Given the dependence on citation data in the majority of interesting science and technology indicators, a general citation theory would make the meaning of S&T indicators more transparent. Hence the continuing call for a citation theory in scientometrics. So far, such a theory has not yet been accepted by the experts in the field. This paper suggests an explanation for this. It also tries to sketch the outline of a generalindicator theory by discussing new implications of an earlier proposal (Wouters, 1998) in relation to existing citation and indicator theories.

Suggested Citation

  • P. Wouters, 1999. "Beyond the holy grail: From citation theory to indicator theories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(3), pages 561-580, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:44:y:1999:i:3:d:10.1007_bf02458496
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02458496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02458496
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02458496?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael H. MacRoberts & Barbara R. MacRoberts, 1989. "Problems of citation analysis: A critical review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 40(5), pages 342-349, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. P. Pichappan & S. Sarasvady, 2002. "The other side of the coin: The intricacies of author self-citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 285-290, June.
    2. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    3. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    4. Costanza, Robert & Stern, David & Fisher, Brendan & He, Lining & Ma, Chunbo, 2004. "Influential publications in ecological economics: a citation analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 261-292, October.
    5. Sebastian Hager & Carlo Schwarz & Fabian Waldinger, 2023. "Measuring Science: Performance Metrics and the Allocation of Talent," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 455, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    6. Lucio-Arias, Diana & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2009. "The dynamics of exchanges and references among scientific texts, and the autopoiesis of discursive knowledge," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 261-271.
    7. Lawrence Smolinsky & Daniel S. Sage & Aaron J. Lercher & Aaron Cao, 2021. "Citations versus expert opinions: citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3853-3870, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dangzhi Zhao & Elisabeth Logan, 2002. "Citation analysis using scientific publications on the Web as data source: A case study in the XML research area," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 449-472, July.
    2. Ponomariov, Branco & Toivanen, Hannes, 2014. "Knowledge flows and bases in emerging economy innovation systems: Brazilian research 2005–2009," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 588-596.
    3. Malcolm Wright & J. Scott Armstrong, 2008. "The Ombudsman: Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 125-139, April.
    4. T. J. Phelan, 1999. "A compendium of issues for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(1), pages 117-136, May.
    5. Jianhua Hou, 2017. "Exploration into the evolution and historical roots of citation analysis by referenced publication year spectroscopy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1437-1452, March.
    6. Peter Sjögårde & Fereshteh Didegah, 2022. "The association between topic growth and citation impact of research publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1903-1921, April.
    7. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    8. Рубинштейн Александр Яковлевич, "undated". "Ранжирование Российских Экономических Журналов: Научный Метод Или «Игра В Цыфирь»? [Ran Ranking of Russian Economic Journals: The Scientific Method or “Numbers Game”?]," Working papers a:pru175:ye:2016:1, Institute of Economics.
    9. Masaki Eto, 2013. "Evaluations of context-based co-citation searching," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 651-673, February.
    10. Martin Meyer, 2000. "What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 93-123, August.
    11. Li, Yunrong & Radicchi, Filippo & Castellano, Claudio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2013. "Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 746-755.
    12. Petridis, Konstantinos & Malesios, Chrisovalantis & Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Thanassoulis, Emmanuel, 2013. "Efficiency analysis of forestry journals: Suggestions for improving journals’ quality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 505-521.
    13. repec:hig:journl:v:6:y:2012:i:1:p:38-58 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Nelson, Andrew J., 2012. "Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion at Stanford," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 678-691.
    15. Wang, Guoyan & Hu, Guangyuan & Li, Chuanfeng & Tang, Li, 2018. "Long live the scientists: Tracking the scientific fame of great minds in physics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1089-1098.
    16. Ronald N. Kostoff, 2002. "Citation analysis of research performer quality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(1), pages 49-71, January.
    17. Joshua Aizenman & Kenneth Kletzer, 2011. "The life cycle of scholars and papers in economics - the 'citation death tax'," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(27), pages 4135-4148.
    18. Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Journal Rankings: Save the Outlets for Your Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 437-441.
    19. Shahzad, Murtuza & Alhoori, Hamed & Freedman, Reva & Rahman, Shaikh Abdul, 2022. "Quantifying the online long-term interest in research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    20. Fairclough, Ruth & Thelwall, Mike, 2015. "National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 845-859.
    21. Gregorio González-Alcaide & Pedro Llorente & José M. Ramos, 2016. "Bibliometric indicators to identify emerging research fields: publications on mass gatherings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1283-1298, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:scient:v:44:y:1999:i:3:d:10.1007_bf02458496. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.