Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: library and information science as a case study

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The investigators studied author research impact using the number of citers per publication an author’s research has been able to attract, as opposed to the more traditional measure of citations. A focus on citers provides a complementary measure of an author’s reach or influence in a field, whereas citations, although possibly numerous, may not reflect this reach, particularly if many citations are received from a small number of citers. In this exploratory study, Web of Science was used to tally citer and citation-based counts for 25 highly cited researchers in information studies in the United States and 26 highly cited researchers from the United Kingdom. Outcomes of the tallies based on several measures, including an introduced ch-index, were used to determine whether differences arise in author rankings when using citer-based versus citation-based counts. The findings indicate a strong correlation between some citation and citer-based measures, but not with others. The findings of the study have implications for the way authors’ research impact may be assessed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We would have liked to have used c-index, but this appears to have been previously proposed in a different context (Wang et al. 2008).

References

  • Adkins, D., & Budd, J. (2006). Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty. Library and Information Science Research, 28, 374–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajiferuke, I. (1991). A probabilistic model for the distribution of authorships. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2000). Collaboration networks in science. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 197–213). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, T. A. (1985). Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36, 223–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1993). Citation-based auditing of academic performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (2002). Identity-creators and image-makers: Using citation analysis and thick description to put authors in their place. Scientometrics, 54(1), 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieks, D., & Chang, H. (1976). Differences in impact of scientific publications: Some indices derived from a citation analysis. Social Studies of Science, 6, 247–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., & Van Hooydonk, G. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 145–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1962). Can citation indexing be automated? Essays of an Information Scientist, 1, 84–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E., & Sher, I. H. (1963). New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation, 14(3), 195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, W. (1966). Mathematical approach to the spread of scientific ideas—The history of mast cell research. Nature, 212, 449–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, W., & Newill, V. A. (1964). Generalization of epidemic theory: An application to the transmission of ideas. Nature, 204, 225–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by coauthorships? Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science: Measuring what’s measurable rather than what’s valid. Scientometrics, 15(3–4), 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, C. (2007). Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelan, T. J. (1989). A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics, 45(1), 117–136.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30, 83–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H., & Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self-citation across disciplines (1980–1989). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 431–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W., Mokhtar, M., & Macaulay, L. (2008). C-index: Trust depth, trust breadth, and a collective trust measurement. In WebScience’08. Retrieved March 24, 2009 from http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/dem/workshops/webscience08/papers/websci08-wang.pdf.

  • White, H. D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, M. D., & Wang, P. (1997). A qualitative study of citing behavior: Contributions, criteria, and metalevel documentation concerns. Library Quarterly, 67, 122–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D. Z. (2006). Towards all-author co-citation analysis. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1578–1591.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Nicole Johnson for providing research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B7, Canada

    Isola Ajiferuke

  2. School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI, 53201, USA

    Dietmar Wolfram

Authors
  1. Isola Ajiferuke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dietmar Wolfram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dietmar Wolfram.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ajiferuke, I., Wolfram, D. Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: library and information science as a case study. Scientometrics 83, 623–638 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0127-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0127-6

Keywords