Munjung Kim
ABSTRACT
Citation count is a popular index for assessing scientific papers. However, it depends on not only the quality of a paper but also various factors, such as conventionality, journal, team size, career age, and gender. Here, we examine the extent to which the conventionality of a paper is related to its citation count by using our measure, topic disparity. The topic disparity is the cosine distance between a paper and its discipline on a neural embedding space. Using this measure, we show that the topic disparity is negatively associated with citation count, even after controlling journal impact, team size, and the career age and gender of the first and last authors. This result indicates that less conventional research tends to receive fewer citations than conventional research. The topic disparity can be used to complement citation count and to recommend papers at the periphery of a discipline because of their less conventional topics.
- Nicolas Bérubé, Gita Ghiasi, Maxime Sainte-Marie, and Vincent Larivière. 2020. Wiki-Gendersort: Automatic gender detection using first names in Wikipedia.Google Scholar
- Katy Börner, Richard Klavans, Michael Patek, Angela M Zoss, Joseph R Biberstine, Robert P Light, Vincent Larivière, and Kevin W Boyack. 2012. Design and update of a classification system: The UCSD map of science. PLoS One 7, 7 (2012), e39464.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lutz Bornmann and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2008. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation 64 (2008), 45–80.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Arman Cohan, Sergey Feldman, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Daniel S Weld. 2020. Specter: Document-level representation learning using citation-informed transformers.Google Scholar
- Jonathan R Cole. 2000. A short history of the use of citations as a measure of the impact of scientific and scholarly work., 281–300 pages.Google Scholar
- Fereshteh Didegah and Mike Thelwall. 2013. Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, 5 (2013), 1055–1064.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ying Ding and Blaise Cronin. 2011. Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing & Management 47, 1 (2011), 80–96.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jordan D Dworkin, Kristin A Linn, Erin G Teich, Perry Zurn, Russell T Shinohara, and Danielle S Bassett. 2020. The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. Nature Neuroscience 23, 8 (2020), 918–926.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alan Fersht. 2009. The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor., 6883–6884 pages.Google Scholar
- Jacqueline M Fulvio, Ileri Akinnola, and Bradley R Postle. 2021. Gender (im) balance in citation practices in cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 33, 1 (2021), 3–7.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jean King. 1987. A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science 13, 5 (1987), 261–276.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vincent Larivière, Yves Gingras, Cassidy R Sugimoto, and Andrew Tsou. 2015. Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 7(2015), 1323–1332.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roosa Leimu and Julia Koricheva. 2005. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers?Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20, 1 (2005), 28–32.Google Scholar
- Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. 2018. UMAP: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction.Google Scholar
- Henk F Moed. 2006. Citation analysis in research evaluation.Google Scholar
- Henk F Moed, WJM Burger, JG Frankfort, and Anthony FJ Van Raan. 1985. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy 14, 3 (1985), 131–149.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jaimie Murdock, Colin Allen, Katy Börner, Robert Light, Simon McAlister, Andrew Ravenscroft, Robert Rose, Doori Rose, Jun Otsuka, David Bourget, 2017. Multi-level computational methods for interdisciplinary research in the HathiTrust Digital Library. PLoS One 12, 9 (2017), e0184188.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ismael Rafols and Martin Meyer. 2010. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 82, 2 (2010), 263–287.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Arnab Sinha, Zhihong Shen, Yang Song, Hao Ma, Darrin Eide, Bo-June Hsu, and Kuansan Wang. 2015. An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications., 243-246 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2740908.2742839Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob B Slyder, Beth R Stein, Brent S Sams, David M Walker, B Jacob Beale, Jeffrey J Feldhaus, and Carolyn A Copenheaver. 2011. Citation pattern and lifespan: a comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics 89, 3 (2011), 955–966.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iman Tahamtan, Askar Safipour Afshar, and Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh. 2016. Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics 107, 3 (2016), 1195–1225.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Erin G Teich, Jason Z Kim, Christopher W Lynn, Samantha C Simon, Andrei A Klishin, Karol P Szymula, Pragya Srivastava, Lee C Bassett, Perry Zurn, Jordan D Dworkin, 2021. Citation inequity and gendered citation practices in contemporary physics.Google Scholar
- Brian Uzzi, Satyam Mukherjee, Michael Stringer, and Ben Jones. 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 6157 (2013), 468–472.Google Scholar
- Hendrik Van Dalen and Kène Henkens. 2001. What makes a scientific article influential? The case of demographers. Scientometrics 50, 3 (2001), 455–482.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jian Wang, Reinhilde Veugelers, and Paula Stephan. 2017. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy 46, 8 (2017), 1416–1436.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lingfei Wu, Dashun Wang, and James A Evans. 2019. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 566, 7744 (2019), 378–382.Google Scholar
- Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 5827 (2007), 1036–1039.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Quantifying the Topic Disparity of Scientific Articles
Recommendations
Quantifying the evolution of a scientific topic: reaction of the academic community to the Chornobyl disaster
We analyze the reaction of academic communities to a particular urgent topic which abruptly arises as a scientific problem. To this end, we have chosen the disaster that occurred in 1986 in Chornobyl (Chernobyl), Ukraine, considered as one of the most ...
Insularity and citation behavior of scientific articles in young fields: the case of ethnobiology
We investigated some factors that can affect the citation behavior in young scientific fields by using ethnobiology as a research model. In particular, we sought to assess the degree of insularity in the citations of scientific articles and whether this ...
A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature
Retracting published scientific articles is increasingly common. Retraction is a self-correction mechanism of the scientific community to maintain and safeguard the integrity of scientific literature. However, a retracted article may pose a profound and ...
Comments