The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 133 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 184 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature
Open accessAbstract
Abstract This study provides a conceptual overview of the literature dealing with the process of citing documents (focusing on the literature from the recent decade). It presents theories, which have been proposed for explaining the citation process, and studies having empirically analyzed this process. The overview is referred to as conceptual, because it is structured based on core elements in the citation process: the context of the cited document, processes from selection to citation of documents, and the context of the citing document. The core elements are presented in a schematic representation. The overview can be used to find answers on basic questions about the practice of citing documents. Besides understanding of the process of citing, it delivers basic information for the proper application of citations in research evaluation.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This conceptual overview synthesizes literature on the citation process, organizing it around three core elements: the cited document, the process from selection to citation, and the citing document. It catalogs citation theories, document/author/journal features, reasons to cite, and decision rules, and argues the framework can inform interpretation of citation analyses in research evaluation.
Key findings
- The citation process is structured into three core elements: the cited document, processes from selection to citation, and the citing document; each element includes document, author, and journal features as well as document values (epistemic, functional, conditional, social, emotional).
- The paper lists 13 main reasons to cite, including classical/founder, persuasive, affirmational, perfunctory, critical/negational, methodological/operational, background reading, understanding, conceptual, claiming, alerting, contrastive, and assumptive; it also describes decision rules such as elimination, multiple-criteria, dominance, scarcity, satisfice, and chain.
- Empirical examples include Frandsen and Nicolaisen (2017), who compared 67,578 pairs of studies and found that documents selected for citation had on average about three times as many citations as unselected documents; Catalini et al. (2015) identified 2.4% of citations in the *Journal of Immunology* as negative.
- Citation-location findings include Bornmann and Daniel (2008a), who reported 32% of citations in introductions, 24% in methods, 13% in results, and 31% in discussions; Cano (1989) reported the highest citation concentration in the first 15% of the citing document, with perfunctory citations comprising 33% there and organic citations 32% in the middle and 41% at the end.
Methods
- Conceptual overview of the literature; the search was conducted in 2017 and included all document types.
- Search steps: first, tables of contents of information science journals (*Journal of Documentation*, *Scientometrics*, *Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology*, *Journal of Informetrics*); second, reference lists of prior reviews; then bibliogram-derived keywords searched in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar, plus identification of citing publications for highly cited papers.
- The synthesis is structured around three core elements and presented in a schematic representation (Figure 1).
Limitations
- The paper states it was not planned as a complete review of the extensive literature; it focuses on historical landmark papers and literature published in recent years (since 2008).
- Evident from the text: it is a conceptual, narrative overview rather than a systematic review, with no reported formal quality appraisal, meta-analysis, or exhaustive search protocol.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
166 Not checked yet · 39 No basis given · 18 Own interpretation
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is a lack of information regarding the relationship between features of citing documents and citations and how these features influence document selection and citation”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several studies have indicated that some characteristics of a document's title and abstract might be less or more attractive for different readers.”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Generally, citing authors assess selected documents based on several criteria, which are described in some previous studies (Wang and White, 1999, Tahamtan et al., 2016, Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Tahamtan et al., 2016 source
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Title, abstract, and keywords are among the elements according to which the value of a document is primarily assessed.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, citing authors select or reject a document based on its title, abstract, and/or keywords.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the citing authors perceive these elements as relevant, the document's full text has a chance of being cited.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a time of broad access to citation indexes, authors tend to cite documents that receive their initial citations very soon after publication.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Accessibility and visibility are mentioned in a large number of studies as impacting on citation decisions (Henneken et al., 2006, Rees et al., 2012, Yue and Wilson, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Henneken et al., 2006
- Not checked yetcites Rees et al., 2012
- Not checked yetcites Yue and Wilson, 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For instance, documents which are published in journals of the Nature publishing group receive high recognition among the scientific community (Vanclay, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vanclay, 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For instance, documents published by authors from the US receive more attention than documents from other countries (Patterson and Harris, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Patterson and Harris, 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The scope of a journal (specialized versus general and local versus international) results in its receiving more or less attention.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Citing authors tend to look at documents in the few journals that are prominent in the scientific field.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Document values underlie the citing author's decision about whether or not to consider a particular document further (Wang and Soergel, 1998, Wang and White, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“International and national collaboration of authors lead to higher recognition of documents (Bornmann et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann et al., 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Documents written by authors from specific countries, with specific races, and specific gender are selected for citing more frequently than others (Tahamtan et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tahamtan et al., 2016 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The centrality of a journal to a field might mean that a weak document in a prestigious journal receives a considerable number of citations (Callaham et al., 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Callaham et al., 2002 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It also happens that authors cite a document because its author is expected to be a referee of their developed product (Wang and White, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Other document features that are considered by citing authors include orientation and level (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, the citation performance of the cited references can be correlated with the citation counts (Bornmann et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann et al., 2012
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The relation of citing author and cited document's author is influential in selecting and citing a document.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The organizational context of the document's author(s) affects the citing author's perception of the document's value.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Cited references with higher impact would probably result in a higher impact of the citing document (Didegah and Thelwall, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Didegah and Thelwall, 2013
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Citing authors most often assess orientation and level by title, abstract, table of content, and/or journal (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The nationality, race, age, and gender are also among the author's features by which the document value is assessed (Tahamtan et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tahamtan et al., 2016 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Citing authors frequently assess quality based on the prestige of a document's journal, authors, institutions, and its citation status (whether it has been already cited by others) (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The journal spectrum (centrality of the journal to the field) is one of the features by which documents are evaluated.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Authors tend to read and cite specific types of documents, such as reviews or methodological studies.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A document that originates from a person or an organization which has a specific meaning for the citing author, such as friends, advisors, course professors, or former employers, is more likely to be read by the citing author (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Accessibility of a document is also a major criterion for assessing a document's value.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Authority influences the citing author's expectations of the document's value in general (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“If a document is considered to be of poor quality, it may be less likely to be read and cited even if it is physically and cognitively accessible (Liu, 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liu, 1997
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Contrastive citations can usually be observed in the discussion section of documents.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In some circumstances, the perceived utility of a document is associated with social groups or persons, such as a famous researcher in the field, an advisor, colleague, organization, or other features of the authors.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The same document can be cited by different authors following different reasons (Harwood, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Harwood, 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When several similar documents on a topic exist, citing authors tend to use the one that excels in at least one aspect, following the dominance rule (Wang and Soergel, 1998, Wang and White, 1999) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Persuasiveness has been found to be one of the most frequently referenced motivations (Brooks, 1985).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brooks, 1985 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They apply various decision rules, including elimination , multiple-criteria , dominance , scarcity , sacrifice , and chain to cite (or not) a certain document (Wang and Soergel, 1998, Wang and White, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Also, the reasons for citing a particular document can vary over time (Case and Higgins, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Case and Higgins, 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“So, if a citing author is positively emotionally affected by reading a document (e.g. because of its high quality or its publication in a reputable journal), he or she uses it more frequently than a document with a negative emotional effect (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Authors use their personal knowledge to interpret document values (see section 3.1.4) , which are the basis for applying citation decision rules (see section 3.2.2).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the number of references in the citing document depends on its discipline.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The academic background of the citing author contextualizes the understanding, interpretation, and citation of relevant documents.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Costas et al. (2010) and Aksnes (2003) similarly report that the number of self-citations increases with the number of authors of the citing document.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, a work might also be cited after being tra nsformed into something unrecognizable to the cited author (Cozzens, 1988).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cozzens, 1988
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Besides document type, several studies have shown that the mean number of cited references varies with the field.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, if a document is cited for conceptual reasons, it tends to be cited in the introduction (as part of the literature overview).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In general, citations are likely to be concentrated at the beginnings (e.g. introduction) and endings (e.g. discussion) of documents than in the middle (Boyack et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boyack et al., 2018 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A document which is cited without being discussed in the citing document can be expected to be less relevant than one which is discussed in-depth within the citing document (Bonzi, 1982).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonzi, 1982 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A document might be cited more than once at different places in the citing document for different reasons (Carroll, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carroll, 2016 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Citations are included in different parts of the citing document, chiefly based on the reasons and decision rules of the citing author (see section 3.2).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The number of self-citations in the citing document, which increases the total number of citations, also varies across different fields.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In Marx and Bornmann (2015), the average number of cited references in 2010 was higher for social sciences than for natural sciences, medical and health sciences, agricultural sciences, humanities, and engineering, respectively.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marx and Bornmann, 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The number of references has trended upwards after this period (Swales, 1990) in all fields (Boyack et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swales, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Boyack et al., 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A higher number of co-authors on a citing document is usually related to a higher number of cited references.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the citation location might reveal the reasons and decision rules for citing a specific document.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Citations can have different relevance based on their locations in the citing documents (see section 3.1.4).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, discipline and topic of the cited document is related to the citations in the citing documents.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Previous studies have shown that users' knowledge of a topic has significant effects on their search behavior for documents (Kelly, 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kelly, 2006
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A citation in the discussion section is frequently about comparable results (Hu et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hu et al., 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, due to such limitations or demands, documents relevant to the citing document might have no opportunity to be cited.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results of Aksnes (2003) and Glänzel and Thijs (2004) reveal, however, that the increase in the number of self-citations might play a minor role in the overall increase in citation rates.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aksnes, 2003 source
- Not checked yetcites Glänzel and Thijs, 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The target journal where the authors are intending to submit their work might influence their decision about whether or not to cite a document (Wang and White, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“authors with incorrect or imprecise topic knowledge find less information and more irrelevant information (Keselman et al., 2008)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keselman et al., 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some journals have their own expectations and demands for the references used.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Besides document and journal features (on the cited and citing side), the authors' features (e.g. academic background and topic knowledge) influence the number of publications which are cited in a specific document and their locations in the citing document.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The differing level of expertise in the field and (thus) the differing availability of publications from the literature searches influence what is cited as well as where and how frequently it is cited.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, authors consider the demands of journals to increase their chances of publication (Wilhite and Fong, 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wilhite and Fong, 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, they prefer some of their own documents to be cited in submitted manuscripts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“authors with a high level of topic knowledge find more information and more relevant information (Downing et al., 2005)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Downing et al., 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Another reason for citing specific documents might be the consensus of the scientific community on the importance of certain documents to the field which have become landmark papers or citation classics (Small, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Small, 2004 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 54
- Probably not a substantial claim. 130
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our search of the literature revealed that many empirical studies focus on the cited document side (e.g. the relationship between the number of co-authors of the cited document and its citations), but only a few studies on the citing document side (e.g. the assumed requirements of journals for citing specific documents).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, the cited documents have not been selected because of their content, but in order to influence the reader as to the claims of the citing author.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gilbert, 1977 source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to Merton (1973), scientists are motivated to cite their peers, by their belief in the justice of giving credit, and the hope of increasing the likelihood of receiving credit through peer recognition.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Merton, 1973
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Citations in scholarly publications are used in very different contexts of research evaluation, which focuses on measurements of research performance, scholarly quality, influence, or impact (Moed, 2017, Moed, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moed, 2017
- Not checked yetcites Moed, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another group of studies (mostly from recent years) have investigated the context of citations (see, e.g., Boyack et al., 2013, Zhao and Strotmann, 2014, Jha et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boyack et al., 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Zhao and Strotmann, 2014
- Not checked yetcites Jha et al., 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Citations are seen as complex processes which cannot be captured by cognitive influence alone .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In social-constructivist theory, citations are seen as rhetorical devices which are not related to the theory of Merton (1973).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Merton, 1973
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The theory has been heavily criticized because it explains only a subset of citation decisions (or nothing at all).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nicolaisen (2004) claims that (human) citation behavior can be explained by theories of honesty and deception in animal communication.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These elements are the basis for the assessment of many other features of the document, such as its topicality (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“He argues that references may be seen as threat signals similar to those in nature such as approaching a rival.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The social-constructivist theory questions the validity of the normative assumption of the use of citations as reward .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The use of citations in these and similar contexts has its roots in citation theories, which have been proposed in the past (see an overview in Cronin, 1984, Nicolaisen, 2007, Davis, 2009, Moed, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cronin, 1984
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Davis, 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A typical and highly cited paper in this context is Gilbert (1977) who regards citations as tools for persuasion.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gilbert, 1977 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Nicolaisen (2007, p. 629) suggests that ' the handicap principle ensures that citing authors honestly credit their inspirations and sources to a tolerable degree-enough to save the scientific communication system from collapsing ' .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2007
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similar overviews of studies dealing with factors influencing citations and important elements in the citation process have been published a decade ago (Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b, Nicolaisen, 2007).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Authors would usually not make the risk of losing their reputation by using weak or dishonest references.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2004
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many empirical studies focusing on the process of citing have been published to identify factors influencing the number of citations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Merton (1973) provides a theoretical basis for scientometrics, in which citations indicate peer recognition through mechanisms such as awards.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Merton, 1973
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A higher level of deceit might be seen in young and immature fields with a less attack by skilled authors (Nicolaisen, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“He also notes that the level of honesty and deceit varies across scientific communities.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2007
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In these studies, the words and sentences around citations are analyzed to get to know information about characteristics of the cited work, reasons to cite, and decision rules of the citing authors (Halevi and Moed, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Halevi and Moed, 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, it has been shown in several studies that the importance of the journal in a field has an influence on the citation impact of the papers published in the journal (Tahamtan et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tahamtan et al., 2016 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The potential cost of dishonest referencing, specifically when the citing references are made public, would make authors reconsider their deceiving behavior.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nicolaisen's theory has not been formally tested.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a very recent study, for example, Small et al. (2017) investigated the context of a set of citations to find words which characterize the cited research as discoveries in science.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Small et al., 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A skilled author detects the false reference and then know where to criticize.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen, 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The first and most prominent theory is the normative citation theory (proposed by Merton) where documents are cited if they have influenced the author of the citing document (Merton, 1973).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Merton, 1973
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to Gilbert (1977), an author selects documents for citing which were published by reputable authors in the field.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gilbert, 1977 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many other factors besides cognitive influence and peer recognition have been identified in the past.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Frandsen and Nicolaisen (2017) compared 67,578 pairs of studies on the same healthcare topic, with the same publication age (1-15 years) and showed that documents selected for citation, have on average received about three times as many citations as unselected documents - slightly more for younger studies than older.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Frandsen and Nicolaisen, 2017
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Citing authors might not consider availability when searching and selecting the document, but the document might not have the opportunity of being read if it is hard to obtain (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specifically, review papers usually have long lists of references and are heavily cited which inflates, e.g. the journal impact factor (JIF) - a well-known journal metric (Seglen, 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seglen, 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There is no consensus on the definition of quality and how it should be measured (Hug et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hug et al., 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“'By taking the number and age of references into account, the 3R avoids some of the problems facing the traditional impact measures' (Nicolaisen and Frandsen, 2008 p. 128-129).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nicolaisen and Frandsen, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, it has been revealed that a positive correlation exists between citation counts and the number of cited references (Falagas et al., 2013) that is documents with more cited references would achieve more citations (Vieira and Gomes, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Falagas et al., 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Vieira and Gomes, 2010
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, hot topics have a higher topicality for citing authors, and in turn attract more attention and citations from the scientific community.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Researchers have differing attitudes toward quality, so that some consider accuracy and importance of research as higher quality, while for others it is creativity and novelty (Tahamtan et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tahamtan et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Researchers usually prefer to write about hot topics in their areas and thus cite the corresponding literature (Fu and Aliferis, 2010, Gallivan, 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fu and Aliferis, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Gallivan, 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is a more or less subjective construct with no generalizable definition, and is assessed differently in disciplines.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, if a new publication captures the attention previously paid to an older publication, the cycle may be broken and the new document might be more attractive for citing (Small, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Small, 2004 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One possible reason is that more authors present the results in scientific networks (such as conferences and workshops).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Journals with international audiences (Annalingam et al., 2014), journals in fast-developing areas, such as genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology (Huang et al., 2012), as well as English language (Bornmann et al., 2012) and interdisciplinary journals (Annalingam et al., 2014) are more likely to be read and cited.”
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, some multidisciplinary journals (e.g. Nature , Science , or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ) attract cross-field attention; the same is true for journals from certain publishers.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One possible explanation for such relationship is that 'the more people you cite in your paper, the more people are likely to cite your paper (the paper they were cited in) in the future' (Webster et al., 2009, p. 349).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Webster et al., 2009 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Team diversity and interdisciplinary cooperation of co-authors (Antoniou et al., 2015), and the availability of former co-authors also increase a document's readership (and citedness) (Collet et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, documents with shorter titles might attract more attention than documents with longer titles (Ayres and Vars, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ayres and Vars, 2000
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Well-known, and highly-cited authors (Bornmann and Daniel, 2007), authors well recognized by readers (Bjarnason and Sigfusdottir, 2002), and authors with higher academic rank (Pagel and Hudetz, 2011) attract more attention.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Bjarnason and Sigfusdottir, 2002
- Not checked yetcites Pagel and Hudetz, 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The former provides readers with comprehensive information and the latter introduces new scientific tools (Padial et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Padial et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Several organizational features are reviewed by Tahamtan et al. (2016), including number of faculty members, number of published documents, number of productive and prestigious scholars in the department, rank of school or university, language of the institution, interdisciplinarity of the institutions, and the number of scholars in the organization.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tahamtan et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a document is cited, researchers observe that, and this increases their interest in the document and the likelihood of citing (accumulative advantage).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Webster et al. (2009, p. 356) indicate that in evolutionary psychology, 'reference counts explained 19% of the variance in citation counts'.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Webster et al., 2009 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the discussion section of citing documents, other works are contrasted with each other, or the results in the citing documents are presented as alternatives to the results in the cited documents (Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The multiple-criteria rule describes a situation where the citing author uses more than one criterion, such as the language of the document, its publisher, and the attractiveness of its topic to accept or reject a document (Wang and Soergel, 1998, Wang and White, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Documents' values are relevant in the selection, reading, and citation stages.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The author cites a document to contrast the results in the citing and cited documents.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These are usually the original documents in which an idea, concept, or theory was introduced (Moravcsik and Murugesan, 1975).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moravcsik and Murugesan, 1975
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Therefore, when the decision maker (e.g. the citing author) finds arguments that are strong enough for making a choice, it is proceeded by the feeling of confidence that the decision taken was the correct one to make (Montgomery, 1983, Vermeir et al., 2002).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Authors cite certain documents to defend their claims against attack.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites SpiegelRosing, 1977
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It is also possible that the citing author disclaims the work or ideas of others or disputes priority claims of others (negative homage) (Garfield, 1962).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garfield, 1962
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The citing author refers to assumed knowledge (that is a general or specific background), or the citing author acknowledges the work of pioneers (Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Documents are cited because the citing authors point to used tools, practical techniques, materials, equipment, analysis methods, procedures, or study design (Moravcsik and Murugesan, 1975).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moravcsik and Murugesan, 1975
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When only a few documents on a topic exist, the citing author is likely to apply less strict selection criteria, lower his or her threshold, and reads and cites less relevant documents. This is called the scarcity rule (Wang and Soergel, 1998, Wang and White, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Authors cite a document in order to correct their own work or the work of others (Garfield, 1962).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garfield, 1962
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although a variety of decision rules have been proposed for how people choose among plenty of alternatives, it is asserted that the dominance rule is more fundamental than the others (Montgomery, 1983).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Montgomery, 1983 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The elimination rule applies when the citing author considers only one criterion to evaluate the document values, which is sufficient to reject a document.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Citing authors have a variety of reasons to cite documents.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Similar conclusions have been published by Thornley et al. (2015) from an interview-based citation behaviour study.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thornley et al. (2015)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some of the most important features according to which the epistemic value is understood are topicality, novelty, and discipline.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Decision making typically takes place in a situation where enough information have been gathered that allows each potential choice to be evaluated and compared to the alternatives, and the decision-maker most often selects only one of them (Case and Given, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Case and Given, 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positive or negative attitudes toward a document's value in the citing author are related to the document, author, and journal features mentioned above.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Authority mostly affects social value (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The functional value can be influenced by features such as topicality, orientation/level, discipline, expected quality, and recency (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When - from the point of view of the citing author - enough documents on a topic are selected, the citing author does not read any more documents, and the selection and citation process on that topic is terminated. This is called the satisfice rule (Wang and Soergel, 1998, Wang and White, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a first attempt, Garfield (1962, p. 85) notes a number of different reasons to cite:”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garfield, 1962
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“authors cite to support their claims and to convince readers of their knowledge claims.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gilbert (1977) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Documents are cited because they present the concepts, definitions, interpretations, or theories which are used in the citing document.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moravcsik and Murugesan, 1975
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Then, the social context suggests that a document is valuable and should be cited (Wang and Soergel, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A citing author assesses a document's value as functional if it is topically relevant and therefore accepts it.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This type of reasons for citation is deeply rooted in the normative theory of citing.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the selection process, each document goes through two main processes: (1) Citing authors have different reasons to cite a document, e.g. the authors criticize the cited work. (2) Citing authors make a choice by applying decision rules .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Selection decisions of documents for citing are done by single citing authors, however other entities, such as author groups, institutions, or journals play significant roles in this process.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, people vary in the level of confidence in their decisions made (Vermeir et al., 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vermeir et al., 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the decision making process, authors try to gather as much information and as many features as they can to reduce their feeling of uncertainty and to make their choice (Case and Given, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Case and Given, 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“If a document is the first substantial work on a topic, methodology, or technique or the document's author is the founder of a theory, method, or technique, the probability of citation increases.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2.1 Reasons to cite · p. 16 · plain
“Citing authors tend to cite the first substantial work (Wang and White, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and White, 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.2.1 Reasons to cite · p. 16 · plain
In the paper
“In a recent study, Catalini et al. (2015) analyzed citations from papers in the Journal of Immunology and identified 2.4% of the total number of citations as negative.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Catalini et al., 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The citing author points to forthcoming works or refers the reader to additional reading (Garfield, 1962).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garfield, 1962
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, a citation can be set for historical reasons by tracking developments of the sciences.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Five types of document values have been identified, including epistemic, functional, conditional, social, and emotional values.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“People also need a set of criteria for knowing when they are ready for decisions (Montgomery, 1983).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Montgomery, 1983 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The study by Riviera (2015, p. 1186) shows that 'Italian scholars cite normatively, paying their intellectual debts and acknowledging colleagues' works'.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Riviera (2015, p. 1186) source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This first attempt already demonstrates that documents are cited for very different reasons, such as showing the theoretical connection between citing and cited documents, or documents are cited for reasons which are not related to research.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several document features, including document type and discipline of appearance, influence how documents are cited in the citing document.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Cano (1989) points out that citations in the introduction are more likely to present background literature than those in other sections.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cano, 1989 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“An important reason for this trend might be that citations were increasingly considered as central elements of academic writing (Bazerman, 1988, Hyland, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bazerman, 1988
- Not checked yetcites Hyland, 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Users with high topic knowledge issue longer and more complex queries during their search than novice users (Hembrooke et al., 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hembrooke et al., 2005 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Boyack et al. (2018) note that there is a rough consensus in the literature that references located outside the introduction tend to be the most valuable.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boyack et al., 2018 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, citation cartels explain relationships between citing and cited authors which are intended to increase the citedness of the citing authors' own papers (Fister Jr et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fister Jr et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“An author's personal knowledge can take a variety of types (Wang and Soergel, 1998), including topic knowledge (who are the relevant authors, when was the topic firstly discussed, and how is it related to the topic at hand), knowledge of the authors (who authored the document - knowledge which is often used to judge topical relevance), knowledge of the journal (by which the document’”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the desire of co-authors to cite their own documents influences their selection of documents, or the target journal's instructions influence the authors' decision to cite certain documents.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Their study shows that 32% of the documents are cited in the introduction, 24% in the methods, 13% in the results, and 31% in the discussion sections.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2008a
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to this study, perfunctory citations encompass the largest category of citations in this section (33%).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cano, 1989 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Besides the features of the cited document , the features of the citing document also influence citation decisions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Organic citations comprise the largest category in the middle section (32%) and at the end (41%) of the cited document (Cano, 1989) (see section 3.2).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cano, 1989 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, mathematics and computer science as well as social science and humanities have more evenly distributed reference distributions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boyack et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Boyack et al. (2018) indicate that the reference distributions vary in different fields of science (e.g. mathematics and computer science as well as social science and humanities).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boyack et al., 2018 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the desire of co-authors to cite their own documents influences their selection of documents, or the target journal's instructions influence the authors' decision to cite certain documents.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Hu et al. (2015) show that for a repeatedly cited document, its first-time citation is usually perfunctory, unlike the later citations (see section 3.2.1).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hu et al., 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The results of Safer and Tang (2009) in psychology reveal that the location predicts the importance of the cited reference.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Safer and Tang, 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reviews usually cite more documents than publications of another document type.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Glänzel and Thijs (2004) show that multi-authorship increases self-citation rates (and also the probability of being cited by others).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glänzel and Thijs, 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, one study shows that the occurrences of citations are concentrated in the introduction (Hu et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hu et al., 2013
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Authors are motivated to cite for scientific or non-scientific reasons (see section 3.2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They found similar reference distributions for biomedical and health sciences, life and earth sciences, as well as physical sciences and engineering: 'citation counts of references peak at around the 30th centile, suggesting that methods papers are more highly cited than other types of papers' (p. 20).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boyack et al., 2017
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, documents with high citation counts are more frequently cited in the introduction (34% of the citing document) than documents with low citation counts (30% of the citing documents).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2008a
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Features of the author (of the citing document) are central elements in the citation process.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The last decision rule is the chain rule : citing authors prefer to make a collective decision on a set of documents that are connected to each other by a specific relationship, such as a document and its critiques or its citations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Soergel, 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Their results show that 'agreement is expressed mostly at the end of a research papers, especially in the 'Discussion' section and towards the end of the 'Results' section. Disagreement is less common in scientific discourse' (p. 1426).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bertin et al., 2016 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Voos and Dagaev (1976) show that not only the reasons for citing a document, but also its relevance for the citing author can be deduced from its location in the citing document.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Voos and Dagaev, 1976
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In modern academic writing, citations maintain specific relevance to the citing document (author), and cited documents are discussed in more detail in all sections of the citing document (Swales, 1990, Hyland, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swales, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Hyland, 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another study indicates that the highest concentration of citations is in the first 15% of the citing document.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cano, 1989 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They indicate that documents with low or high citation counts are cited differently in the different sections of citing documents.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Daniel, 2008a
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The numbers of citations of specific documents and their location in the citing document depend also on the citing document features (e.g. the type of citing document), author features (e.g. the number of authors of the citing document), and journal features (e.g. guidelines of the journal).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Besides academic background and individual attributes, we would like to mention three further author-related factors influencing citations: citation cartels, number of authors, and self-citations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Over the period from 1910 to 1983, the average number of cited references in documents was about ten.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swales, 1990
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Aksnes (2003) shows that the lowest percentage of self-citations in publications by Norwegian authors is in clinical medicine (17%) and the highest percentage is in chemistry and astrophysics (31%).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aksnes, 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some journals determine the number of references that should be used for different types of papers in their guidelines or instructions for authors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Besides simply counting the number of citations obtained, citations can be disaggregated based on their different values, including epistemic, functional, conditional, social, and emotional values ( see section 3.1.4 ).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conceptual overview shows that citations in citing documents can be explained differently and depends on many factors.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Small (2004) and other researchers have pointed out that normative and constructivist theories should be combined in one theory (Liu, 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Small, 2004 source
- Not checked yetcites Liu, 1997
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Each single citation process probably has its own characteristics across the core elements in the model and their assigned factors, rules, and reasons (Bornmann and Marx, 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bornmann and Marx, 2012
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Citation cartels (see section 3.3.3) also refer to journal editors who use inter-journal citations to increase the JIF of their journals (Garfield, 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garfield, 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These reasons can be assigned to different degrees of relevance for scientific progress: for instance, methodological or operational reasons can be assigned a higher relevance than perfunctory reasons.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Latour (1987) draws attention to the fact that citations vary widely from one situation to another and that authors have different reasons to cite.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Latour, 1987
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One reason for this result of the overview might be that many citation studies are driven by the available data and full text is only recently becoming more easily available.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conceptual overview of the literature in this study can be seen as an alternative to the proposed theories of citation, because it points to the most important elements - the core elements - in the citation process.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The core elements identified in the literature are the most important elements in the citation process.
In the paper
“A uthors use citations to support their knowledge claims and indicate with this that their work is scientific.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Latour, 1987
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Luukkonen (1997) notes that this explanation does not legitimate major uses of citation, its use as a performance measure, or as an indication of the development of specialties, as in co-citation analysis.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luukkonen, 1997 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Leydesdorff (1998), however, a comprehensive theory of citation could not be formulated in the 20 th century and even later on.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leydesdorff, 1998 source
hedged- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, based on the 'manuscript formatting guide' of Nature , articles (original reports) should have no more than 50 references. In Science , research articles should have about 40 references.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, citations can simply be counted; however, using their perceived values in the citing document, new kinds of citation analyses seem possible (Boyack et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boyack et al., 2017
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Citation reasons and values can be reliably inferred from citing documents.
In the paper
“Selection decisions can be assessed by empirically analyzing the online activity surrounding documents, including the number of times a document is viewed, downloaded, or saved from publishers' web sites and discussed or recommended on social media (Lin and Fenner, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lin and Fenner, 2013
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haunschild et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Hug et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The WoS and Scopus platforms also provide researchers with usage counts for publications, enabling researchers to analyze the usage data and to explore usage patterns (Wang et al., 2016, Thelwall et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these further citation theories have not reached the importance of the normative and constructivist theories.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Luukkonen (1997) further explains that one advantage of Latour's theory over the normative theory is that the former paints a coherent picture of the actual use of citations, and that citations perform different functions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luukkonen, 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to this theory, the general role of citations is uniformly that of supporting knowledge claims.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Latour, 1987
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overview starts with an explanation of three important citation theories, because many empirical studies in this area are rooted in these theories (especially the normative and constructivist theories).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although a higher number of citing authors can lead to more citations in the citing document, the number of self-citations can only explain a (small) part of the increased overall citation rates.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Citations can also be disaggregated by the reasons of the citing authors (e.g. to support own knowledge claims or to criticize other research).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, citation cartels additionally explain relationships between editor and citing author (Fister Jr et al., 2016) and thus the corresponding inclusion of cited references in citing documents.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fister Jr et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These core elements have been identified in the manifold literature on the process and condensed in a schematic representation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The literature reviewed is comprehensive enough to identify the core elements of the citation process.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These citations might be added to documents in the field in a ritualized way which leads to an additional increase in citation rates of landmark papers or citation classics.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The empirical literature on citations is mostly rooted in the normative or social-constructivist theories.
“The current study is intended to synthesize the empirical literature on citations, which is mostly rooted in the normative or social-constructivist theories.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The core elements identified in the literature are the most important elements in the citation process.
“it points to the most important elements - the core elements - in the citation process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The literature reviewed is comprehensive enough to identify the core elements of the citation process.
“These core elements have been identified in the manifold literature on the process and condensed in a schematic representation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Citation reasons and values can be reliably inferred from citing documents.
“using their perceived values in the citing document, new kinds of citation analyses seem possible”
The paper relies on this without support.
Authors consider a certain document further if they perceive some values in the document.
“Authors consider a certain document further if they perceive some values in the document.”
The paper relies on this without support.
These values determine the applied decision rules for selecting the document and reasons to cite.
“These values determine the applied decision rules for selecting the document and reasons to cite.”
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?
In the citing paper
“journal impact indicators influence citing behavior, firstly because impact factors increase the visibility of the paper based on an assumption that journals with higher impact indicators publish papers of a higher scientific value.”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [273]
In the citing paper
“In turn, papers that are published in high quality journals are cited more frequently.”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [273]
In the citing paper
“Thus, citation-based impact indicators tend to create bias amongst authors not only when choosing journal for publishing, but also when choosing which literature to cite [268,273-275].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [273]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3.2.2 Decision rules · p. 20
“including elimination , multiple-criteria , dominance , scarcity , sacrifice , and chain”
§ 3.2.2 Decision rules · p. 21
“This is called the satisfice rule (Wang and Soergel, 1998, Wang and White, 1999).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3.3.1 Location and number of citations · p. 22
“The location of citations in cited documents can be defined based on conventional paper sections”
§ 3.3.1 Location and number of citations · p. 22
“Citations are included in different parts of the citing document, chiefly based on the reasons and decision rules of the citing author”
Citations
Cites
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
Bijker, W. E., & Latour, B. (1988) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105094 · Cited by 10,770
(1987) · Cited by 8,955
Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8 · Cited by 4,930
Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings
James, M. O., & Swales, J. M. (1992) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/329786 · Cited by 4,712
The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations
Kaplan, N. M., Merton, R. Κ., & Storer, N. W. (1974) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3102264 · Cited by 4,030
The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor
Garfield, E. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90 · Cited by 2,770
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
Seglen, P. O. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 · Cited by 2,447
Judgment in Managerial Decision Making
Bazerman, M. H. (1986) · Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · Cited by 2,250
What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2008) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/00220410810844150 · Cited by 1,607 · cited 12×
“They define citations of this type as follows: “citing work confirms cited work; citing work is supported by cited work; citing work depends on cited work; citing work agrees with ideas or findings of cited work; citing work is strongly influenced by cited work” (Bornmann and Daniel, 2008b, p. 66).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Garfield, 1962, Can citation indexing be automated, Essays of an Information Scientist, 1, 84
- Hug, 2014, A framework to explore and develop criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities, International Journal for Education Law and Policy, 10, 55
- Liu, 1997, Citation theories in the framework of international flow of information: New evidence with translation analysis, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 48, 80
- Wang, 1999, A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 50, 98
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696
Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time
Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x · Cited by 899
Dimensions: Building Context for Search and Evaluation
Hook, D. W., Porter, S. J., & Herzog, C. (2018) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2018.00023 · Cited by 325
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03243-4 · Cited by 236
Self-citationHow much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess
Szomszor, M., Pendlebury, D., & Adams, J. R. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Tahamtan, Iman
- Venue
- Journal of Informetrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 203-216
- ISSN
- 1751-1577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2779231960
- Semantic Scholar
- 0a4e16c391dd7a49b6b7f3969bef4167212277fb
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 133
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12
- FWCI
- 13.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Journal of Informetrics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- citation theory, document selection, citation context, research evaluation, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
