Cited by 236scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018

Open access
Tahamtan, Iman, Bornmann, Lutz·2019·Scientometrics

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11192-019-03243-4

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Misclassifying citation intents has significant implications for the interpretation and evaluation of scientific work; errors may modify the perceived impact of scientific outputs.

    “misclassifying citation intents is not only a technical concern, but has significant implications for the interpretation and evaluation of scientific work. Indeed, as automated systems become increasingly employed in research assessment pipelines, errors in classifying citation intents may modify the perceived impact of scientific outputs (Nicholson et al., 2021; Tahamtan & Bornmann, 2019).”

    From CiteFusion: an ensemble framework for citation intent classification harnessing dual-model binary couples and SHAP analyses (2025) · cites this paper as Tahamtan & Bornmann, 2019

    The Article Highlights (p. 3) say evaluative bibliometrics would benefit from citation-context analysis, and §4 (p. 44) reports varying accuracy in automated citation-function classification. This supports the concern that classification matters for evaluation, but the paper does not establish that automated systems are increasingly used in assessment pipelines or directly show that misclassification changes the perceived impact of scientific outputs. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Citations are inherently complex and heterogeneous, reflecting a wide range of motivations and rhetorical functions within scholarly writing.

    “citations are inherently complex and heterogeneous: they reflect a wide range of motivations and rhetorical functions within scholarly writing (Pride, 2022; Tahamtan & Bornmann, 2019)”
  • Citations themselves are not equal because citations may have very different meanings determined by many reasons for citing.

    “citations themselves are not equal, primarily because citations may have very different meaning, which is determined by the plethora of reasons for citing [266-268].”
  • Factors affecting citation counts can be divided into paper-related, journal-related, and author-related factors.

    “There are numerous factors affecting citation counts [270,271], which can be divided into (1) factors that are related to the paper, (2) factors related to the journal, and (3) factors related to the author [266,272].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Tahamtan, Iman
Venue
Scientometrics
Published
2019-09-28
Volume
121
Issue
3
Pages
1635-1684
ISSN
  • 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1588-2861
OpenAlex
W2953364155
Cited by
236
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 4
FWCI
15.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
citation counts, citation functions, citation context analysis, citation indexes, citation metadata, information retrieval, bibliometric analysis

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