Author practices in citing other authors, institutions, and journals

Abstract

This study explores the extent to which authors with different impact and productivity levels cite journals, institutions, and other authors through an analysis of the scientific papers of 37,717 authors during 1990-2013. The results demonstrate that the core-scatter distribution of cited authors, institutions, and journals varies for authors in each impact and productivity class. All authors in the science network receive the majority of their credit from high-impact authors; however, this effect decreases as authors' impact levels decrease. Similarly, the proportion of citations that lower-impact authors make to each other increases as authors' impact levels decrease. High-impact authors, who have the highest degree of membership in the science network, publish fewer papers in comparison to highly productive authors. However, authors with the highest impact make both more references per paper and also more citations to papers in the science network. This suggests that high-impact authors produce the most relevant work in the science network. Comparing practices by productivity level, authors receive the majority of their credit from highly productive authors and authors cite highly productive authors more frequently than less productive authors.

Statistical relationships between corresponding authorship, international co-authorship and citation impact of national research systems

“…The approach of allocating credits to corresponding authors, institutions or countries has proven to be useful in numerous studies. In an analysis of author citation's practices by Gazni et al (2016), in several cases the most important role and main responsibility for a paper was only attributed to the corresponding author. The use of corresponding institutions to identify collaborating patterns and fluxes was proposed by Cova et al (2015).…”

Miksi suomalaisen tutkimuksen tuottavuus kasvoi, mutta laatu heikentyi?

“…Perushavainto on, että tutkijoiden tuottavuudessa ja tutkimuksen laadussa on valtavia eroja; kymmenesosa tutkijoista tuottaa puolet maan julkaisuista ja kerää vielä suuremman osan viittauksista (esim. Gazni & Ghaseminik, 2015). Mitä enemmän tutkimusorganisaatiossa on näitä tuotteliaita tutkijoita, sitä tuottavampi se on ja sitä korkeampi sen tutkimuksen vaikuttavuus.…”

Modeling citation worthiness by using attention-based bidirectional long short-term memory networks and interpretable models

“…In science, the lack of citations leaves readers wondering how results were built upon previous work (Aksnes and Rip, 2009). Also, it precludes researchers from getting appropriate credit, important during hiring and promotion (Gazni and Ghaseminik, 2016). The sentences surrounding a citation provide rich information for common semantic analyses, such as information retrieval (Nakov et al, 2004).…”