IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v9y2019i1p2158244019829575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories

Author

Listed:
  • Dag W. Aksnes
  • Liv Langfeldt
  • Paul Wouters

Abstract

Citations are increasingly used as performance indicators in research policy and within the research system. Usually, citations are assumed to reflect the impact of the research or its quality. What is the justification for these assumptions and how do citations relate to research quality? These and similar issues have been addressed through several decades of scientometric research. This article provides an overview of some of the main issues at stake, including theories of citation and the interpretation and validity of citations as performance measures. Research quality is a multidimensional concept, where plausibility/soundness, originality, scientific value, and societal value commonly are perceived as key characteristics. The article investigates how citations may relate to these various research quality dimensions. It is argued that citations reflect aspects related to scientific impact and relevance, although with important limitations. On the contrary, there is no evidence that citations reflect other key dimensions of research quality. Hence, an increased use of citation indicators in research evaluation and funding may imply less attention to these other research quality dimensions, such as solidity/plausibility, originality, and societal value.

Suggested Citation

  • Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:2158244019829575
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244019829575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244019829575
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244019829575?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2016. "A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 646-651.
    2. Claire Donovan & Stephen Hanney, 2011. "The ‘Payback Framework’ explained," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 181-183, September.
    3. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    4. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2011. "Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 499-514, June.
    6. Stefan Hornbostel & Susan Böhmer & Bernd Klingsporn & Jörg Neufeld & Markus Ins, 2009. "Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(1), pages 171-190, April.
    7. Michael H. MacRoberts & Barbara R. MacRoberts, 1989. "Problems of citation analysis: A critical review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 40(5), pages 342-349, September.
    8. Adam Eyre-Walker & Nina Stoletzki, 2013. "The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-8, October.
    9. Aksnes, Dag W. & Rip, Arie, 2009. "Researchers' perceptions of citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 895-905, July.
    10. Jochen Gläser & Grit Laudel, 2001. "Integrating Scientometric Indicators into Sociological Studies: Methodical and Methodological Problems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(3), pages 411-434, November.
    11. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    12. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    13. Mårtensson, Pär & Fors, Uno & Wallin, Sven-Bertil & Zander, Udo & Nilsson, Gunnar H, 2016. "Evaluating research: A multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 593-603.
    14. Anthony F J van Raan, 1993. "Advanced bibliometric methods to assess research performance and scientific development: basic principles and recent practical applications," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 151-166, December.
    15. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    16. Fredrik Niclas Piro & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2016. "How can differences in international university rankings be explained?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2263-2278, December.
    17. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan & Wouters, Paul, 2013. "Counting publications and citations: Is more always better?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 635-641.
    18. Alessio Ancaiani & Alberto F. Anfossi & Anna Barbara & Sergio Benedetto & Brigida Blasi & Valentina Carletti & Tindaro Cicero & Alberto Ciolfi & Filippo Costa & Giovanna Colizza & Marco Costantini & F, 2015. "Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 242-255.
    19. Larivière, Vincent & Gingras, Yves, 2011. "Averages of ratios vs. ratios of averages: An empirical analysis of four levels of aggregation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 392-399.
    20. Liv Langfeldt & Mats Benner & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ernst H. Kristiansen & Dag W. Aksnes & Siri Brorstad Borlaug & Hanne Foss Hansen & Egil Kallerud & Antti Pelkonen, 2015. "Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 661-675.
    21. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    22. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
    23. Lutz Bornmann & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2007. "What do we know about the h index?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(9), pages 1381-1385, July.
    24. Caroline S Wagner & Edwin Horlings & Travis A Whetsell & Pauline Mattsson & Katarina Nordqvist, 2015. "Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    25. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    26. Terttu Luukkonen, 2012. "Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 48-60, February.
    27. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    28. John P A Ioannidis & Kevin Boyack & Paul F Wouters, 2016. "Citation Metrics: A Primer on How (Not) to Normalize," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-7, September.
    29. Richard Van Noorden & Brendan Maher & Regina Nuzzo, 2014. "The top 100 papers," Nature, Nature, vol. 514(7524), pages 550-553, October.
    30. Opthof, Tobias & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2010. "Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 423-430.
    31. Yves Gingras & Matthew L. Wallace, 2010. "Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 401-412, February.
    32. Eugene Garfield, 1997. "Validation of citation analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 48(10), pages 962-962, October.
    33. Ludo Waltman & Michael Schreiber, 2013. "On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 372-379, February.
    34. María‐del‐Mar Camacho‐Miñano & Manuel Núñez‐Nickel, 2009. "The multilayered nature of reference selection," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(4), pages 754-777, April.
    35. Jos J. Winnink & Robert J. W. Tijssen & Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2016. "Theory‐changing breakthroughs in science: The impact of research teamwork on scientific discoveries," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1210-1223, May.
    36. Rinia, E. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N. & van Vuren, H. G. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1998. "Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 95-107, May.
    37. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    38. P. Wouters, 1999. "Beyond the holy grail: From citation theory to indicator theories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(3), pages 561-580, March.
    39. Susanne E. Baumgartner & Loet Leydesdorff, 2014. "Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) of citations in scholarly literature: Dynamic qualities of “transient” and “sticky knowledge claims”," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 797-811, April.
    40. Truyken L. B. Ossenblok & Tim C. E. Engels & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2012. "The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science--a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005--9)," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 280-290, September.
    41. Sven E. Hug & Michael Ochsner & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2013. "Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: a Delphi study among scholars of English literature, German literature and art history," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(5), pages 369-383, August.
    42. Werner Marx & Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1823-1827, February.
    43. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2006. "Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 491-502, June.
    44. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    45. Ludo Waltman & Michael Schreiber, 2013. "On the calculation of percentile‐based bibliometric indicators," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 372-379, February.
    46. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    47. Alonso, S. & Cabrerizo, F.J. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2009. "h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 273-289.
    48. Björn Hellqvist, 2010. "Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(2), pages 310-318, February.
    49. Björn Hellqvist, 2010. "Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(2), pages 310-318, February.
    50. Dag W Aksnes & Randi Elisabeth Taxt, 2004. "Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 33-41, April.
    51. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2013. "Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 699-716, September.
    52. Dag W Aksnes, 2003. "Characteristics of highly cited papers," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 159-170, December.
    53. Katrin Weller, 2015. "Social Media and Altmetrics: An Overview of Current Alternative Approaches to Measuring Scholarly Impact," Springer Books, in: Isabell M. Welpe & Jutta Wollersheim & Stefanie Ringelhan & Margit Osterloh (ed.), Incentives and Performance, edition 127, pages 261-276, Springer.
    54. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Abramo, Giovanni, 2018. "Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 590-597.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, May.
    4. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2018. "Research assessment by percentile-based double rank analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 315-329.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2019. "Normalisation of citation impact in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 841-884, August.
    6. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2011. "The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 275-291.
    7. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    9. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2018. "Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 598-604.
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2020. "Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    12. Bornmann, Lutz & Ganser, Christian & Tekles, Alexander, 2022. "Simulation of the h index use at university departments within the bibliometrics-based heuristics framework: Can the indicator be used to compare individual researchers?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    13. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    14. Thelwall, Mike & Kousha, Kayvan & Stuart, Emma & Makita, Meiko & Abdoli, Mahshid & Wilson, Paul & Levitt, Jonathan, 2023. "Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    15. Lutz Bornmann & Richard Williams, 2020. "An evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact, and a proposal for making them better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1457-1478, August.
    16. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    17. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    18. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2019. "Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 419-459, August.
    19. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.
    20. Andersen, Jens Peter, 2017. "An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 455-465.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:2158244019829575. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.