nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Theoretical Frameworks

verfasst von : Eugenio Petrovich

Erschienen in: A Quantitative Portrait of Analytic Philosophy

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Citations and acknowledgments are at the core of the empirical investigations conducted in this book. In this chapter, the main theories developed to explain the meaning and function of these two para-textual elements are presented. Against this background, the theoretical approach that underlies the empirical studies of the next sections of the book is delineated. Citation theories are divided into causal and structural theories. The former group includes two opposing theories proposed by sociologists of science (i.e., the normative and the persuasion theory of citations). The latter includes a theory developed by scientometricians (the theory of indicators) and the theoretical approach chosen for the book (the epistemic theory of citations). As to the acknowledgments theory, two accounts, the normative and the strategic, are presented. Drawing elements from both of them, the approach of the book, called the theory of acknowledgments as positioning signals, is distilled.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel On the Margins of Philosophy

Nächstes Kapitel The Research Object

https://clarivate.com/eugene-garfield-award/ A detailed history of the prehistory, creation, and early days of the citation index can be found in Wouters (1999).

In Italy, for instance, scientists are required to pass “bibliometric thresholds” based on productivity and citation impact in order to apply for professorships. The deep integration of bibliometrics into research evaluation practices, as well as the perverse effects it may have, have been widely studied in the last 20 years: see, for instance, (Baccini et al., 2019).

We note en passant that philosophers of science, by contrast, have not been particularly attracted by citations. According to Leydesdorff, this happened because philosophers of science tend to consider citations as belonging to the “context of discovery” and not the “context of justification” (Leydesdorff, 1998).

Further reviews of citation theories can be found in Nicolaisen (2007), Bornmann and Daniel (2008), and Tahamtan and Bornmann (2019).

In later works, Merton added the norm of originality: scientists should aim to produce new scientific knowledge rather than reaffirming what is already known.

More advanced indicators involve the comparison of absolute counts against some benchmark value, such as the average number of citations received in the discipline. These “normalized” indicators are central in evaluative bibliometrics because they allow us to compare citation counts across fields that have very different citation densities (Waltman, 2016). For instance, it is well known that mathematics has a lower number of citations per paper than medicine because there are fewer publishing mathematicians than publishing medical doctors; this means that receiving 10 citations in mathematics is more significant than receiving 10 citations in medicine, or, alternatively, that citations are “heavier” in mathematics than in medicine. Normalizing over the field average allows the analysts to compare citation indicators across different fields.

This idea dates back to the historian of science Derek De Solla Price and his project of a science of science (Price, 1963). Price proposed to turn the tools of science on science itself, advocating the use of statistical procedures to measure science:

My approach will be to deal statistically [...] with general problems of the shape and size of science and the ground rules governing growth and behavior of science-in-the-large. [...] The method to be used is similar to that of thermodynamics, in which is discussed the behavior of a gas under various conditions of temperature and pressure. One does not fix one’s gaze on a specific molecule called George [...]; one considers only and average of the total assemblage in which some molecules are faster than others [...]. On the basis of such an impersonal average, useful things can be said about the behavior of the gas as a whole, and it is in this way what I want to discuss the analysis of science as a whole. (Price, 1963, p. v)

Clearly, they are not the only traces of scientific accumulation. The use of technical language and the phenomenon of OBI (obliteration by incorporation) are other important signs. The technical language used by scientists in communicating their research embodies the theoretical and methodological knowledge typical of their scientific field, whereas the OBI, i.e., the phenomenon by which scientists do not cite the original paper in which a theory or concept was advanced by the first time, but simply refer to it by eponymous terms (e.g., the Planck constant), is another sign of the accumulation process (Merton, 1988).

The notion of epistemic constraint is drawn from the work of Luca Guzzardi but it is used here in a slightly different meaning.

This shows that science is a social achievement, but the term “social” should be intended differently from the idea of social construction of scientific facts defended by the socio-constructivist sociology of science. “Social” refers to the fact that scientific claims are never isolated, but always woven into a context. The scientist never begins from zero but is always confronted with a background. This confrontation may take the form of negotiation or even conflict with other scientists or the previous knowledge—and here it is where the micro-sociology of scientific controversies and laboratory studies come into play. But the social construction of scientific facts is a further dynamic that presupposes the more basic property of science, its collective nature.

Alvarez, G. R., & Caregnato, S. E. (2020). Agradecimentos em artigos científicos : percepção e comportamento dos pesquisadores brasileiros. Informação & Sociedade: estudos. João Pessoa., 30(3), 1–22.CrossRef

Amsterdamska, O., & Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Citations: Indicators of significance? Scientometrics, 15(5–6), 449–471.CrossRef

Baccini, A., De Nicolao, G., & Petrovich, E. (2019). Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0221212.CrossRef

Baccini, A., & Petrovich, E. (2021). Normative versus strategic accounts of acknowledgment data: The case of the top-five journals of economics. Scientometrics.

Baldi, S. (1998). Normative versus Social Constructivist Processes in the Allocation of Citations: A Network-Analytic Model. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 829.CrossRef

Berg, N., & Faria, J. (2008). Negatively correlated author seniority and the number of acknowledged people: Name-recognition as a signal of scientific merit? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), 1234–1247.CrossRef

Biagioli, M. (2018). Quality to impact, text to metadata: Publication and evaluation in the age of metrics. KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge, 2(2), 249–275.

Board, N. S. (1973). Science Indicators, 1972. Technical report, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.CrossRef

Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2005). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255.CrossRef

Chatfield, C. (2002). Confessions of a pragmatic statistician. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 51(1), 1–20.MathSciNet

Chen, C. (2013). Mapping scientific frontiers: the quest for knowledge visualization (2nd ed.). London: Springer.CrossRef

Coates, C. (1999). Interpreting academic acknowledgements in english studies: Professors, their partners, and peers. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 25(3–4), 253–276.

Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 377–390.CrossRef

Costas, R., & Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Approaching the “reward triangle”: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and “peer interactive communication” in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647–1661.

Cronin, B. (1981). The need for a theory of citing. Journal of Documentation, 37(1), 16–24.CrossRef

Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar’s courtesy: The role of acknowledgement in the primary communication process. London: Taylor Graham.

Cronin, B. (1998). Metatheorizing citation. Scientometrics, 43(1), 45–55.CrossRef

Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.CrossRef

Cronin, B., & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article’s paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1909–1918.CrossRef

Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1994). The scholar’s courtesy: A survey of acknowledgment behaviour. Journal of Documentation, 50(3), 165–196.CrossRef

Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & Barre, K. L. (2004). Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 160–168.CrossRef

Cronin, B., & Weaver-Wozniak, S. (1995). The praxis of acknowledgement: From bibliometrics to influmetrics. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 18(2), 172–177.CrossRef

Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., Haustein, S., Costas, R., Mongeon, P., Quan-Haase, A., Bowman, T. D., Pecoskie, J., Tsou, A., & Larivière, V. (2018). Authorship, citations, acknowledgments and visibility in social media: Symbolic capital in the multifaceted reward system of science. Social Science Information, 57(2), 223–248.CrossRef

DORA (2013). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.

Egghe, L. (2005). Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. Library and information science series, 1st edn. Elsevier Science & Technology, Amsterdam. OCLC: 255622012.

Fu, A., Yao, B., Dong, T., Chen, Y., Yao, J., Liu, Y., Li, H., Bai, H., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Wang, C., Guo, Y., Li, N., & Cai, S. (2022). Tumor-resident intracellular microbiota promotes metastatic colonization in breast cancer. Cell, 185(8), 1356-1372.e26.CrossRef

Fujigaki, Y. (1998). The citation system: Citation networks as repeatedly focusing on difference, continuous re-evaluation, and as persistent knowledge accumulation. Scientometrics, 43(1), 77–85.CrossRef

Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108–111.CrossRef

Garfield, E., & Sher, I. H. (1963). New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation, 14(3), 195–201.CrossRef

Giannoni, D. S. (2002). Worlds of Gratitude: A Contrastive Study of Acknowledgement Texts in English and Italian Research Articles. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 1–31.MathSciNetCrossRef

Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7, 113–122.CrossRef

Giles, C. L., & Councill, I. G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(51), 17599–17604.CrossRef

Hamermesh, D. S. (1992). The young economist’s guide to professional etiquette. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(1), 169–179.CrossRef

Hargens, L. (2000). Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship. American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846–865.CrossRef

Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.CrossRef

Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367.MathSciNetCrossRef

ICMJE, I. C. o. M. J. E. (2019). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.

Kaplan, N. (1965). The norms of citation behavior. Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation, 16(3), 179–187.CrossRef

Kassirer, J. P., & Angell, M. (1991). On Authorship and Acknowledgments. New England Journal of Medicine, 325(21), 1510–1512.CrossRef

Katz, J., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRef

Kessler, M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling extended in time: Ten case histories. Information Storage and Retrieval, 1(4), 169–187.CrossRef

Knorr-Cetina, K. (2003). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. [etc. OCLC: 1039575616]

Koljatic, M. (2021). Unconsented acknowledgments as a form of authorship abuse: What can be done about it? Research Ethics, 17(2), 127–134.CrossRef

Kuhn, T. S. (1963). The function of dogma in scientific research. In A. Crombie (Ed.), Scientific change: Historical studies in the intellectual, social and technical conditions for scientific discovery and technical invention, from antiquity to the present (pp. 347–369). London: Heinemann.

Laband, D., & Tollison, R. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662.CrossRef

Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2003). Good colleagues. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(4), 505–512.CrossRef

Lalli, R., Howey, R., & Wintergrün, D. (2020). The dynamics of collaboration networks and the history of general relativity, 1925–1970. Scientometrics, 122(2), 1129–1170.CrossRef

Latour, B. (2003). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (11th ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. OCLC: 254704565.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Clarendon lectures in management studies. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. OCLC: ocm58054359.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 5–25.CrossRef

Liang, L., Zhong, Z., & Rousseau, R. (2014). Scientists’ referencing (mis)behavior revealed by the dissemination network of referencing errors. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1973–1986.CrossRef

MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1987). Another test of the normative theory of citing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 38(4), 305–306.CrossRef

MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2018). The mismeasure of science: Citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(3), 474–482.CrossRef

Marshakova, I. (1973). System of document connections based on references. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Seriya 2-Informatsionnye Protsessy I Sistemym, 2(6), 3–8.

Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12(2), 61–90.CrossRef

McCain, K. W. (2018). Beyond Garfield’s citation index: an assessment of some issues in building a personal name acknowledgments index. Scientometrics, 114(2), 605–631.CrossRef

Merton, R. K. (1974). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (4th ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. OCLC: 832530903.

Merton, R. K. (1979). Foreword. In Citation indexing - its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities, Information sciences series. New York: Wiley.

Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(299), 606–623.CrossRef

Mitroff, I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo Moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595.CrossRef

Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 609–641.CrossRef

Oettl, A. (2012). Reconceptualizing stars: Scientist helpfulness and peer performance. Management Science, 58(6), 1122–1140.CrossRef

Patel, N. (1973). Collaboration in the professional growth of American sociology. Social Science Information, 12(6), 77–92.CrossRef

Paul-Hus, A., Díaz-Faes, A. A., Sainte-Marie, M., Desrochers, N., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2017). Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences. PLOS ONE, 12(10), e0185578.CrossRef

Petrovich, E. (2021). Science mapping and science maps. Knowledge Organization, 48(7–8), 535–562.CrossRef

Price, D. J., & d. S. (1963). Little science. Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rose, M. E. (2018). Collaboration networks in economic science. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cape Town.

Rose, M. E., & Georg, C.-P. (2021). What 5,000 acknowledgements tell us about informal collaboration in financial economics. Research Policy, 50(6), 104236.CrossRef

Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell; Malden, MA, 2nd edn. OCLC: ocn317361783.

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.CrossRef

Small, H. (1978). Cited Documents as Concept Symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3), 327–340.CrossRef

Small, H. (1998). Citations and consilience in science. Scientometrics, 43(1), 143–148.CrossRef

Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813.CrossRef

Small, H. (2010). Maps of science as interdisciplinary discourse: Co-citation contexts and the role of analogy. Scientometrics, 83(3), 835–849.CrossRef

Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2019). What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1635–1684.CrossRef

Tarkang, E. E., Kweku, M., & Zotor, F. B. (2017). Publication practices and responsible authorship: A review article. Journal of Public Health in Africa, 8(1).

Van Noorden, R. (2013). Brazilian citation scheme outed. Nature, 500(7464), 510–511.CrossRef

Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much. Scientometrics, 43(1), 129–139.CrossRef

Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.CrossRef

Waquet, F. (2005). Acknowledgments: Instructions for use. Modern Intellectual History, 2(3), 361–385.CrossRef

Weinberg, J. (2021). Citations and the ethics of credit.

White, H. D. (2004). Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal Hoax: A study in citation identities. Scientometrics, 60(1), 93–120.CrossRef

Wouters, P. (1999). Beyond the holy grail: From citation theory to indicator theories. Scientometrics, 44(3), 561–580.CrossRef

Titel: Theoretical Frameworks
verfasst von: Eugenio Petrovich
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: A Quantitative Portrait of Analytic Philosophy
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-53199-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-53200-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53200-9_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner