Cited by 96scientometrics and bibliometrics researchLibrary Science and InformationWeb visibility and informetrics

Random thoughts on citationology its theory and practice

Garfield, E.·1998·Scientometrics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02458396

Cites

24 of 24 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garfield, E.
Corresponding author
Garfield, E.
Venue
Scientometrics
Published
1998-09
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
69-76
ISSN
  • 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1588-2861
OpenAlex
W2006651691
Cited by
96
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
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 theory, citation analysis, bibliometric analysis, citation behavior, citation indexes, journal impact factor, scientific impact, Nobel laureates, information science theory

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