Are all citations worth the same? Valuing citations by the value of the citing items

Cristiano Giuffrida, Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004-2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater "sensitivity" when used to identify the highly-cited papers.

LanguageEnglish
Pages500-514
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Informetrics
Volume13
Issue number2
Early online date12 Mar 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2019

Fingerprint

Values
operationalization
weighting
present
methodology
science

Keywords

  • Bibliometrics
  • Citing-cited
  • Impact
  • Research evaluation

Cite this

Giuffrida, Cristiano ; Abramo, Giovanni ; D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea. / Are all citations worth the same? Valuing citations by the value of the citing items. In: Journal of Informetrics. 2019 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 500-514.
@article{4b735a05b43c409c9e6e3b5d71d19a6d,
title = "Are all citations worth the same? Valuing citations by the value of the citing items",
abstract = "Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004-2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater {"}sensitivity{"} when used to identify the highly-cited papers.",
keywords = "Bibliometrics, Citing-cited, Impact, Research evaluation",
author = "Cristiano Giuffrida and Giovanni Abramo and D'Angelo, {Ciriaco Andrea}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.008",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "500--514",
journal = "Journal of Informetrics",
issn = "1751-1577",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

Are all citations worth the same? Valuing citations by the value of the citing items. / Giuffrida, Cristiano; Abramo, Giovanni; D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea.

In: Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 13, No. 2, 05.2019, p. 500-514.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are all citations worth the same? Valuing citations by the value of the citing items

AU - Giuffrida, Cristiano

AU - Abramo, Giovanni

AU - D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea

PY - 2019/5

Y1 - 2019/5

N2 - Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004-2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater "sensitivity" when used to identify the highly-cited papers.

AB - Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004-2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater "sensitivity" when used to identify the highly-cited papers.

KW - Bibliometrics

KW - Citing-cited

KW - Impact

KW - Research evaluation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063053456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063053456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.008

DO - 10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.008

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 500

EP - 514

JO - Journal of Informetrics

T2 - Journal of Informetrics

JF - Journal of Informetrics

SN - 1751-1577

IS - 2

ER -