Citations and certainty: a new interpretation of citation counts
We report that the rate of hedging in citing sentences for biomedical papers is inversely related to the citations received by the papers as measured by the number of citances in citing papers. Hedging is often regarded as an expression of uncertainty in rhetorical studies of scientific text. Citing sentences, or citances, are retrieved from the PubMed Central database for papers having 10 or more citances, and the percentage of citances containing hedging words is plotted against the number of citances for the papers, which is closely related to the citation count. Hedging rates are computed separately for method and non-method papers, the latter being more frequently hedged. Rates of hedging are found to be higher for papers with fewer citances, suggesting that the certainty of scientific results is directly related to citation frequency. Similarly, early citations made soon after publication are more hedged than later citations. The implications of this finding for the interpretation of citation counts are discussed, and the directions for future research.
KeywordsCitations Citances Hedging Uncertainty Biomedicine
We thank Mike Patek for parsing of the PubMed Central full text data into data structures suitable for analysis.
- Chen, C., & Song, M. (2018). Representing scientific knowledge: The role of uncertainty. London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Cole, S. (1992). Making science: Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- DiMarco, C., Kroon, F. W., & Mercer, R. E. (2006). Using hedges to classify citations in scientific articles. In J. Shanahan, Y. Qu, & J. Wiebe (Eds.), Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 247–263)., The Information Retrieval Series Amsterdam: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4102-0.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Garfield, E. (1990). The most-cited papers of all time, SCI 1945–1988. Part 1A. The SCI top 100—Will the Lowry method ever be obliterated? Current Contents, 7, 3–14. February 12, 1990. [Reprinted in: Essays of an information Scientist, Vol. 13 (p. 45). Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press].Google Scholar
- Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Nakov, P., Schwartz, A., & Hearst, M. (2004). Citances: Citation sentences for semantic analysis of bioscience text. SIGIR workshop of search and discovery on bioinformatics.Google Scholar
- Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons Inc.Google Scholar
- Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Small, H. & Klavans, R. (2011). Identifying scientific breakthroughs by combining co-citation analysis and citation context. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
- Teetor, P. (2011). R Cookbook. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.Google Scholar