Abstract
PurposeCitation analysis as a method for studying scientific communication is frequently criticized for being based on biased citation practices. Questionable motives for the reference selection have been suggested including the claim that authors tend to cite hot papers in order to show-off. In this study, the authors investigate the claim that authors tend to cite the recent literature in order to show-off.Design/methodology/approachFollowing Moed and Garfield (2004), the authors investigate the claim by analyzing the proportion of recent references as a function of the length of the reference lists of citing papers. The authors analyze reference lists of citing papers in the fields of biomedical engineering, economics, medicine, psychology and library and information science between 2010 and 2019. From each of these fields, a number of journals are included in the analysis to represent the field. In total, 42 journals are included in the analyses comprising a selection of almost 65,000 journal articles. The proportion of recent references is calculated using two citation windows. The proportion of recent references as a function of the length of the reference lists is calculated through simple linear regressions to predict the share of recent references based on the number of references.FindingsThe results of the linear regressions indicate that in most cases, there are a statistically significant relationship between the share of recent references and the number of references. This study’s results show that when authors display selective referencing behavior, references to the recent literature tend to be only marginally increased, and some results even display the opposite tendency (marginally overciting the older literature).Originality/valueThis study of the claim that authors tend to cite the recent literature in order to show-off does not confirm the hypothesis.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems
Reference39 articles.
1. Gender bias in clinical case reports: a cross-sectional study of the ‘big five’ medical journals;PloS One,2017
2. Evidence of complex citer motivations;Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1986
3. Understanding science by analysing its literature;The Information Scientist,1976
4. The field‐specific reference patterns of periodical and nonserial publications;Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2019
5. The productivity of economics departments in the US: publications in the core journals;Journal of Economic Literature,1995