Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

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 access
Glänzel, Wolfgang, Schoepflin, Urs·1999·Information Processing & Management

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0306-4573(98)00028-4

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 279

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.