The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature
Abstract
In an exploratory study, the time behaviour of citations to articles of seven journals representing different scientific fields (sociology, psychology, chemistry, general and inter nal medicine, statistics and probability theory) were analysed to establish: (i) differences in ageing and reception speed between social sciences and other science fields, to determine (ii) if there are connections between ageing and reception, and (iii) if deviations are due to fields or individ ual journals. Bibliometric methods and citation-based indi cators were used within a stochastic model. It was found that obsolescence of the social science journals in the set is slower than for the medical and chemistry journals. The behaviour of the mathematical journal is similar to the ones in social sciences. The study suggests that ageing seems to be specific to the field rather than to the individual journal. On the other hand, slow ageing does not necessarily corre spond with slow response. Impact factors based on the usual two years' observation period may therefore be dis torted by deviating ageing behaviour.
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
Citation life cycles of ten citation classics
Cano, V., & Lind, N. C. (1991) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02020003 · Cited by 82
Cited by
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002 · Cited by 1,002
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
Journal impact measures in bibliometric research
Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1014848323806 · Cited by 558
Self-citationThe 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U.
- Venue
- Journal of Information Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-53
- ISSN
- 0165-5515 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-6485
- OpenAlex
- W2029391677
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/016555159502100104
- The paper
- Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159502100104
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.