The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Charting the Digital Literary Sphere
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“Similarly, as explored in Murray [90], the digital environment selects for certain types of readers and reading experiences that may systematically impact on the kinds of tweets that are produced.”
From Five studies evaluating the impact on mental health and mood of recalling, reading, and discussing fiction (2022) · cites this paper as Murray [90]
Citations
Cites
Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word
ONG, W. J. (1982) · Taylor & Francis eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203328064 · Cited by 6,996
Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide
Jenkins, H., & Plasencia, A. (2017) · Is the Universe a Hologram? · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262036016.003.0012 · Cited by 6,944
The Rise of the Creative Class
Florida, R. L. (2002) · Cited by 4,537
Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction
Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956) · Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 · Cited by 4,380
The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man
Leech, G. N., & McLuhan, M. (1963) · The Modern Language Review · doi:10.2307/3719923 · Cited by 3,339
Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation
Genette, G., Macksey, R. A., & Lewin, J. E. (1997) · Cited by 2,671
The field of Cultural Production
(2002) · Understanding Bourdieu · doi:10.4135/9781446221488.n8 · Cited by 2,461
The reading nation in the Romantic period
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-3194 · Cited by 1,549
The rules of art : genesis and structure of the literary field
Bourdıeu, P., & Emanuel, S. (1997) · Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) · doi:10.6570/psqbr.2011.31.4 · Cited by 1,394
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2019) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781036234232 · Cited by 1,150
Cited by
Faraway, So Close: Seeing the Intimacy in Goodreads Reviews
Driscoll, B., & Sedo, D. R. (2018) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800418801375 · Cited by 107
Amateur Creativity: Contemporary Literature and the Digital Publishing Scene
Vadde, A. (2017) · New Literary History · doi:10.1353/nlh.2017.0001 · Cited by 63
The Global Book: Micropublishing, Conglomerate Production, and Digital Market Structures
Steiner, A. (2017) · Publishing Research Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s12109-017-9558-8 · Cited by 50
Mapping the entertainment ecosystem of Wattpad: Platforms, publishing and adaptation
Parnell, C. (2020) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/1354856520970141 · Cited by 54
Algorithmic imaginings and critical digital literacy on #BookTok
Low, B., Ehret, C., & Hagh, A. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231206466 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- MURRAY, S.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- MURRAY, SIMONE
- ORCID
- MURRAY, SIMONE
- Venue
- Contemporary Literature
- Publisher
- University of Wisconsin Press
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 311-339
- ISSN
- 0010-7484 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-9949
- OpenAlex
- W1839249262
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 88
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 5.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Contemporary Literature (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Geographic Society
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Cultural Insights and Digital Impacts
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Digital Humanities and Scholarship
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Contemporary Literature and Criticism
- Keywords
- digital literature, digital humanities
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
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.
