CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97scientometrics and bibliometrics researchLibrary Science and Information LiteracyLibrary Science and Information

A Qualitative Study of Citing Behavior: Contributions, Criteria, and Metalevel Documentation Concerns

White, Marilyn Domas, Wang, Peiling·1997·The Library Quarterly
DOI 10.1086/629929
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This qualitative study of the citing motivations of twelve agricultural economists (faculty and doctoral students) identifies several factors they considered in making citing decisions: the contributions of the document to their research, the criteria they apply to the documents, and metalevel documentation concerns. The article reports citing behavior derived from a larger empirical, longitudinal study tracing document use during research projects and thus includes behavior related to decisions both to cite and not to cite. An important finding is the existence of metalevel concerns that influence a decision to cite a document, in addition to situational factors related to its actual use during research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/629929

Cites

29 of 29 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 and Wang (1997) found that four out of five motivations ('topicality,' 'content,' 'orientation,' and 'relation') were apparent in both positive and negative decisions (that is, to cite and not to cite).

    “As Table X indicates, four out of five motivations ('topicality,' 'content,' 'orientation,' and 'relation') were apparent in both positive and negative decisions (that is, to cite and not to cite).”

    From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as White and Wang (1997)

  • White and Wang (1997) found that the most frequently named motives for citing or not citing ('topicality' and 'content') indicated that the author's judgment as to the contribution the cited document made to the author's research played the most important role in the decision to cite or not cite.

    “The most frequently named motives for citing or not citing ('topicality' and 'content') indicated that the author's judgment as to the contribution the cited document made to the author's research played the most important role in the decision to cite or not cite.”

    From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as White and Wang (1997)

  • White and Wang (1997) found that in making a negative decision the participants did not comment on the recognition of a document in the field as the first substantial work on a topic or technique.

    “In making a negative decision the participants did not comment on the recognition of a document in the field as the first substantial work on a topic or technique.”

    From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as White and Wang (1997)

  • White and Wang (1997) found that the interviewees cited fewer documents than they had read during their research process.

    “the content analysis of the interviews shows, in agreement with MacRoberts and MacRoberts' (1987) findings, that the interviewees cited fewer documents than they had read during their research process.”

    From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as White and Wang (1997)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
White, M. D., & Wang, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
ORCID
Wang, Peiling
Venue
The Library Quarterly
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
1997-04
Volume
67
Issue
2
Pages
122-154
ISSN
  • 0024-2519 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-652X
DOI
10.1086/629929
OpenAlex
W2059048044
Cited by
97
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Library Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords
agricultural economists, research documentation

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