Survey about citation context analysis: Tasks, techniques, and resources

Hernández-Álvarez, Myriam; Gómez, José Manuel

doi:10.1017/s1351324915000388

Cited by 71 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are, however, not comparable between the studies due to the diversity of the classification schemes, methodologies, and datasets. There is no consensus regarding a single standard scheme which could be used for most disciplines or even for one certain discipline (Hernández -Alvarez & Gomez, 2015). Here, it seems necessary that the studies are better rooted in each other.…”

Section: Summarizing the Empirical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Detecting citation functions, using either automated or manual data processing, is often a difficult task for a variety of reasons, mainly because the citations' purposes are not always explicitly mentioned by the citing authors (Hernández -Alvarez & Gomez, 2015). In some cases, the results are inconsistent with each other, which makes it difficult to decide which feature should be included in order to produce more accurate classifiers.…”

Section: Summarizing the Empirical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jha et al (2017) noted that a more robust measure of citations is to use the citation context to provide additional information about how a cited paper has been used in the citing paper (Hernández-Alvarez, Gomez Soriano, & Martínez-Barco, 2017). In other words, to understand citation impact, an extended form of citation analysis has been used by researchers, which is known as citation content/context analyses (Hernández -Alvarez & Gomez, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to update the review of Bornmann and Daniel (2008) presenting a narrative review of studies on citations in scientific documents. The current review covers 41 studies published between 2006 and 2018. Bornmann and Daniel (2008) focused on earlier years. The current review describes the (new) studies on citation content and context analyses as well as the studies that explore the citation motivation of scholars through surveys or interviews. One focus in this paper is on the technical developments in the last decade, such as the richer meta-data available and machine-readable formats of scientific papers. These developments have resulted in citation context analyses of large datasets in comprehensive studies (which was not possible previously). Many studies in recent years have used computational and machine learning techniques to determine citation functions and polarities, some of which have attempted to overcome the methodological weaknesses of previous studies. The automated recognition of citation functions seems to have the potential to greatly enhance citation indices and information retrieval capabilities. Our review of the empirical studies demonstrates that a paper may be cited for very different scientific and non-scientific reasons. This result accords with the finding by Bornmann and Daniel (2008). The current review also shows that to better understand the relationship between citing and cited documents, a variety of features should be analyzed, primarily the citation context, the semantics and linguistic patterns in citations, citation locations within the citing document, and citation polarity (negative, neutral, positive).

show abstract

Section: Summarizing the Empirical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summarizing the Empirical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The work presented here belongs to the field of citation context analysis , which has seen increased interest in the past few years, mainly thanks to the availability of data (full‐text articles in exploitable formats) and efficient natural language processing (NLP) tools; see Bornmann and Daniel (), Ding et al, () and Hernández‐Alvarez and Gomez () for reviews of the subject.…”

Section: The Scientific Citation As a Social And Textual Objectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations in Scientific Texts: Do Social Relations Matter?

Milard

Tanguy

2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an investigation of the role of social relations in the writing of scientific articles through the study of in‐text citations. Does the fact that the author of an article knows the author whose work he or she cites have an impact on the context of the citation? Because citations are commonly used as criteria for research evaluation, it is important to question their social background to better understand how it impacts textual features. We studied a collection of science articles (N = 123) from 5 disciplines and interviewed their authors (N = 84) to: (a) identify the social relations between citing and cited authors; and (b) measure the correlation between a set of features related to in‐text citations (N = 6,956) and the identified social relations. Our pioneering work, mixing sociological and linguistic results, shows that social relations between authors can partly explain the variations of citations in terms of frequency, position and textual context.

show abstract

“…In recent times, the increasing availability of the full text of scientific publications has enabled a rising interest in its use for the purposes of, among others, information retrieval, automatic summarization of publications, and detection of citation polarity or motivation (Ding et al, ; Jha, Jbara, Quazvinian, & Radev, ; Hernández‐Alvarez & Gomez, ). An example application is the automatic summarization of a set of research articles: Qazvinian and Radev () and Qazvinian et al () proposed using the text of citing sentences to produce summaries of individual articles.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Closer the Better: Similarity of Publication Pairs at Different Cocitation Levels

Colavizza

Boyack

Waltman

2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the similarities of pairs of articles which are co-cited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the co-citation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article co-citation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compare results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular co-citation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature. IntroductionThe co-citation relation is used extensively in bibliometrics, and has received some recent attention in information retrieval. Applications include the identification of topically-related publications for search engines and clustering of publications to understand the structure of science. If two or more publications are co-cited by a third one, they are generally assumed to be related to some extent, from the viewpoint of their citing authors (Small 1973). Normally, this assumption is considered to be valid already at a relatively coarse co-citation level, most often at the publication (e.g. article) level. In addition, recent work suggests that the relatedness of co-cited publications might increase with increasing proximity of two publications within the full text of the citing publication (e.g. Gipp & Beel 2009), and that improvements in maps of science or document retrieval can be obtained by taking textual proximity into account (e.g. Boyack et al. 2013). Indeed, it makes sense to assume that if two publications are co-cited within the same sentence or bracket in a publication, they typically will be in some way more related than two publications co-cited only at the more general section or publication levels. Yet open questions remain. We know little about the ways in which related, co-cited publications are similar over different dimensions. Furthermore, to what extent do different notions of similarity, such as textual and intellectual, depend on the level of the co-citation? This study was designed to provide answers to these questions.

show abstract

Survey about citation context analysis: Tasks, techniques, and resources

Cited by 71 publications

References 52 publications

What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018

What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018

Citations in Scientific Texts: Do Social Relations Matter?

The Closer the Better: Similarity of Publication Pairs at Different Cocitation Levels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About