The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences
Open accessAbstract
Abstract In earlier papers the authors focused on differences in the ageing of journal literature in science and the social sciences. It was shown that for several fields and topics bibliometric standard indicators based on journal articles need to be modified in order to provide valid results. In fields where monographs, books or reports are important means of scientific information, standard models of scientific communication are not reflected by journal literature alone. To identify fields where the role of non-serial literature is considerable or critical in terms of bibliometric standard methods, the totality of the bibliographic citations indexed in the 1993 annual cumulation of the SCI and SSCI databases, have been processed. The analysis is based on three indicators, the percentage of references to serials , the mean references age , and the mean reference rate . Applications of these measures at different levels of aggregation (i.e., to journals in selected science and social science fields) lead to the following conclusions. 1. The percentage of references to serials proved to be a sensitive measure to characterise typical differences in the communication behaviour between the sciences and the social sciences. 2. However, there is an overlap zone which includes fields like mathematics, technology oriented science, and some social science areas. 3. In certain social sciences part of the information seems even to be originated in non-scientific sources: references to non-serials do not always represent monographs, pre-prints or reports. Consequently, the model of information transfer from scientific literature to scientific (journal) literature assumed by standard bibliometrics requires substantial revision before valid results can be expected through its application to social science areas.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/016555159502100104 · Cited by 231
Self-citationBraun, T., Glänzel, W., & Grupp, H. (1995) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017332 · Cited by 103
Self-citationA new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors
Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1998) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eum0000000007175 · Cited by 102
The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989–1993. Part II. Life sciences
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Grupp, H. (1995) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02020421 · Cited by 61
Self-citationA stochastic model for the ageing of scientific literature
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017212 · Cited by 60
Self-citationAre methodological papers more cited than theoretical or empirical ones? The case of sociology
Peritz, B. C. (1983) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02019738 · Cited by 53
The structure of social science literature as shown by a large-scale citation analysis
Line, M. B. (1981) · Social Science Information Studies · doi:10.1016/0143-6236(81)90001-6 · Cited by 49
Heisey, T. M. (1988) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eb026831 · Cited by 16
Cited by
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 · Cited by 5,274
Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review
Nederhof, A. J. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2 · Cited by 786
The Four Literatures of Social Science
Hicks, D. (2006) · Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research · doi:10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_22 · Cited by 332
Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis
Lisée, C., Larivière, V., & Archambault, É. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20888 · Cited by 164
Vaughan, L., Glänzel, W., Korch, C., & Capes-Davis, A. (2017) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-16-2258 · Cited by 63
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U.
- Venue
- Information Processing & Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-44
- ISSN
- 0020-0271 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-4573
- OpenAlex
- W1991526941
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 4.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0306-4573(98)00028-4
- The paper
- Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing & Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4573(98)00028-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.