Cited by 255Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesAcademic Writing and Publishingscientometrics and bibliometrics research

An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines

Harwood, Nigel·2009·Journal of Pragmatics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harwood, N.
Affiliations
University of Essex (GB)
Corresponding author
Harwood, Nigel
Venue
Journal of Pragmatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
497-518
ISSN
0378-2166 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064679534
Cited by
255
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 11
FWCI
191.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pragmatics (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
citation functions, academic writing, disciplinary differences, further reading, emic perspective

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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