Abstract
In the nineties of the last century, researchers have applied several indicators to study reference literature of scientific articles. Glänzel and Schoepflin (1999) was the first time to capture and understand the subject characteristics in terms of structure and ageing of cited literature in the sciences and social sciences. Following and extending the pioneer study two decades ago, the present study focuses on how to build efficient instruments for the measurement of relevant aspects related to the ‘hardness’ of science. Apart from the observed general shift towards the use of more recent and indexed literature, the need of more than one single indicator is also detected in this study.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burrell, Q. L. (2005). Symmetry and other transformation features of Lorenz/Leimkuhler representations of informetric data. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1317–1329.
Chi, P.-S., & Glänzel, W. (2018). Comparison of citation and usage indicators in research assessment in scientific disciplines and journals. Scientometrics, 116(1), 537–554.
Chi, P.-S., & Glänzel, W. (2021). An article-based cross-disciplinary study of reference literature for indicator improvement. In W. Glänzel, S. Heeffer, P.-S. Chi, & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international conference of the international society of scientometrics and informetrics. Leuven, Belgium, pp. 259–268.
Cozzens, S. E. (1985). Using the archive: Derek Price’s theory of differences among the sciences. Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 431–441.
Egghe, L. (1997). Price Index and its relation to the mean and median reference age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 564–573.
Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66938.
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). A stochastic model for the ageing of scientific literature. Scientometrics, 30(1), 49–64.
Glänzel, W. and Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric ageing study based on serial and non-serial reference literature in the sciences. In Proceedings of 5th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, held in River Forest, IL, June 7–10. Learned Information, Medford, pp. 177–185.
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35(3), 31–44.
Glänzel, W. (2010). On reliability and robustness of scientometrics indicators based on stochastic models. An evidence-based opinion paper. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 313–319.
Larivière, V., Archambault, E., & Gingras, Y. (2008). Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady state science (1900–2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 288–296.
Leimkuhler, F. (1967). The Bradford distribution. Journal of Documentation, 23(3), 197–207.
Martin-Martin, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllon, J. M., & Lopez-Cozar, E. D. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1477–1487.
McGrath, W. E. (1978). Relationships between hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/nonlife disciplines and subject book use in a university library. Information Processing & Management, 14(1), 17–28.
Moed, H. F. (1989). Bibliometric measurement of research performance and Price’s theory of differences among the sciences. Scientometrics, 15(5), 473–483.
Norman, S. (1967). The hard sciences and the soft: Some sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 55, 75–84.
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.
Price, D.J. (1970). Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. In C. E. Nelson, D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers (pp. 3–22), Lexington, MA, USA: Heath.
Schoepflin, U., & Glänzel, W. (2001). Two decades of “scientometrics” - An interdisciplinary field represented by its leading journal. Scientometrics, 50(2), 301–312.
Schubert, A., & Maczelka, H. (1993). Cognitive changes in Scientometrics during the 1980s, as reflected by the reference patterns of its core journal. Social Studies of Science, 23(3), 571–582.
Verstak, A., Acharya, A., Suzuki, H., Henderson, S., Iakhiaev, M., Chiung, C., Lin, Y., Shetty, N. (2014). On the shoulders of giants: The growing impact of older articles. http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0275. Accessed 12 February 2021.
Wouters, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (1994). Has Price’s dream come true: Is Scientometrics a hard science? Scientometrics, 31(2), 193–222.
Zhang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2017). A citation-based cross-disciplinary study on literature aging: Part I –the synchronous approach. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1573–1589.
Acknowledgements
This paper is an extended version of a previous work presented at the 18th ISSI Conference in Leuven, Belgium (Chi & Glänzel, 2021).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chi, PS., Glänzel, W. An article-based cross-disciplinary study of reference literature for indicator improvement. Scientometrics 127, 7077–7089 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04262-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04262-w