Abstract
This study uses citation data from the Scite (scite.ai) web tool to determine which disciplines frequently use citations that either support or contrast previous works. The raw citation type data provided by the scite.ai tool is sorted into categories of “mentioning,” “supporting,” and “contrasting” to identify the disciplines that commonly use supporting citations and those that frequently use contrasting or combative citations. This data from scite.ai was aligned to major academic disciplines, as defined by Web of Science. Medicine has the most combative citations, while mathematics has the least. However, it is important to note that the “combativeness” of disciplines should not be seen as a negative. In fields like medicine, where flawed hypotheses or study findings can have serious consequences, it is necessary to challenge problematic ideas and findings. This study adds a new dimension of depth by not only examining the frequency of mentioning, supporting, and contrasting citation, but also employing and evaluating the efficacy of the scite.ai tool for this purpose.
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Bordignon, F. (2020). Self-correction of science: A comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review. Scientometrics, 124(2), 1225–1239.
Bordignon, F. (2022). Critical citations in knowledge construction and citation analysis: From paradox to definition. Scientometrics, 127, 959–972.
Clarivate Analytics. (2022). Web of Science core collection help. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_research_areas_easca.html
Lamers, W. S., Boyack, K., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., & Murray, D. (2021). Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature. eLife, 10, e72737.
Lund, B. D. (2020). Do “interdisciplinary” disciplines have an interdisciplinary impact?: Examining citations between educational technology and library and information science journals. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5103–5116.
scite.ai. (2022). Scite data and services. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://scite.ai/data-and-services
Vuong, Q. (2019). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 119–130.
Wang, Y., Du, Y., & Yan, E. (2018). Citation context and the strength of scientific evidence. PLoS ONE, 13(6), e0197967.
Acknowledgements
The Scite tool can be accessed at scite.ai.
Funding
No funding was received for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest or competing interests to report.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lund, B., Shamsi, A. Examining the use of supportive and contrasting citations in different disciplines: a brief study using Scite (scite.ai) data. Scientometrics 128, 4895–4900 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04781-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04781-8