CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic integrity and plagiarismWeb visibility and informetrics

Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal Hoax: A study in citation identities

White, Howard D.·2004·Scientometrics
DOI 10.1023/b:scie.0000027313.91401.9b
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/b:scie.0000027313.91401.9b

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • White (2004) concludes that the results are better explained by Robert K. Merton's norm of universalism than by the constructivists' particularism.

    “White (2004) concludes, 'the results are better explained by Robert K. Merton's norm of universalism, which holds that citers are rewarding use of relevant intellectual property, than by the constructivists' particularism, which holds that citers are trying to persuade through manipulative rhetoric'”

    From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as White (2004)

  • White (2004) found that the reputational counts of citees always have an approximately log-normal distribution: citations to very famous names are roughly balanced by citations to obscure ones, and most citations went to authors of middling reputation.

    “showing 'that the reputational counts of their citees always have an approximately log-normal distribution: citations to very famous names are roughly balanced by citations to obscure ones, and most citations went to authors of middling reputation'”

    From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as White (2004)

  • The studies by Baldi (1998), Stewart (1983), and White (2004) provide more support for a normative interpretation of the allocation of citations than for a social constructivist interpretation.

    “In contrast, the studies undertaken by Baldi (1998), Stewart (1983), and White (2004) provide more support for a normative interpretation of the allocation of citations than for a social constructivist interpretation.”

    From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as White, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
White, H. D.
Affiliations
Drexel University (US)
Corresponding author
White, Howard D.
ORCID
White, Howard D.
Venue
Scientometrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-05
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
93-120
ISSN
  • 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1588-2861
DOI
10.1023/b:scie.0000027313.91401.9b
OpenAlex
W2081927521
Cited by
80
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Keywords
citation analysis, author reputation, Robert K. Merton, particularism, constructivism, persuasion, reward, Sokal hoax, Institute for Scientific Information, citation counts

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