Cited by 170scientometrics and bibliometrics researchLibrary Science and InformationWeb visibility and informetrics

Citation content analysis ( CCA ): A framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content

Open access
Zhang, Guo, Ding, Ying, Milojević, Staša·2013·Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Abstract

This study proposes a new framework for citation content analysis ( CCA ), for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content that can be used to better analyze the rich sociocultural context of research behavior. This framework could be considered the next generation of citation analysis. The authors briefly review the history and features of content analysis in traditional social sciences and its previous application in library and information science (LIS). Based on critical discussion of the theoretical necessity of a new method as well as the limits of citation analysis, the nature and purposes of CCA are discussed, and potential procedures to conduct CCA , including principles to identify the reference scope, a two‐dimensional (citing and cited) and two‐module (syntactic and semantic) codebook, are provided and described. Future work and implications are also suggested.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.22850

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The availability of citation context information in new sources of citation data, such as Microsoft Academic, opens new opportunities to study document values and possible reasons to cite.

    “The availability of citation context information in new sources of citation data, such as Microsoft Academic, opens new opportunities to study document values and possible reasons to cite (Haunschild et al., 2017, Hug et al., 2017, Hug and Brändle, in press, Zhang et al., 2013).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 109 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, G., Ding, Y., & Milojević, S.
Affiliations
  • School of Library and Information Science Indiana University 1320 E. 10th Street Bloomington IN 47405
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
  • Ding, Ying
  • Milojević, Staša
Venue
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-05-23
Volume
64
Issue
7
Pages
1490-1503
ISSN
  • 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2890
OpenAlex
W2136213468
Cited by
169
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
10.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1208804)
  • Joint Information Systems Committee
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Keywords
citation analysis, syntactic analysis, semantic analysis, research behavior, codebook design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review