The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The rise and rise of citation analysis
Open accessAbstract
It is a sobering fact that some 90% of papers that have been published in academic journals are never cited. Indeed, as many as 50% of papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, referees and journal editors. We know this thanks to citation analysis, a branch of information science in which researchers study the way articles in a scholarly field are accessed and referenced by others.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“These metrics are based upon the assumption that influential works or scientists are cited more often than others [6, 8]”
From Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements (2017) · cites this paper as [6]
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
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output
Hirsch, J. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102 · Cited by 11,669
The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor
Garfield, E. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90 · Cited by 2,770
Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.1440370106 · Cited by 1,930
Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation
Moed, H. F. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3714-7 · Cited by 1,493
Scholarly communication and bibliometrics
Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102 · Cited by 1,147
Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities
Wallin, J. A. (2005) · Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology · doi:10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x · Cited by 913
van Raan, A. F. J. (2005) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6 · Cited by 760
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006) · Biomedical Digital Libraries · doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 · Cited by 752
Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar
Bar‐Ilan, J. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y · Cited by 720
What do we know about the h index?
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20609 · Cited by 672
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?
Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z · Cited by 3,139
Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries
Fanelli, D. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 · Cited by 1,248
Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z · Cited by 964
Kulkarni, A. V. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307 · Cited by 821
Li, K., Rollins, J. E., & Yan, E. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5 · Cited by 740
Metadata
- Authors
- Meho, L. I.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Meho, Lokman I
- ORCID
- Meho, Lokman I
- Venue
- Physics World
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 32-36
- ISSN
- 0953-8585 (ISSN-L)
- 2058-7058
- OpenAlex
- W1517593287
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 27.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Physics World (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- E-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) (acceptedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
- Hispana (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- citation analysis, scholarly impact, citation counts, scientific journals, research evaluation, information science
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
