IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i2d10.1007_s11192-021-04226-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critical citations in knowledge construction and citation analysis: from paradox to definition

Author

Listed:
  • Frederique Bordignon

    (Ecole des Ponts
    CNRS)

Abstract

Critical citations are lacking a common definition in relation to extant research on knowledge construction and citation analysis, whereas studies on these topics seem to provide a fully relevant theoretical framework, making criticism an essential phenomenon for the progress of science. We propose to explain this paradox by the fact that a citation seems to have a positive polarity by default and that a polarity shift is the result of a stronger commitment on the part of the author. This results in the use of specific cue words. By studying the labels (and their associated definitions) that 53 other studies equated with the concept of critical citation, we identified 3 functions on which to base the definition of critical citation: "to criticize", "to compare" and "to question" other works. While these studies seem to consider the criticize function as central and probably more frequent, the analysis of a corpus of 51 text snippets containing a citation (all retrieved from those same studies) reveals that the citations considered as critical by these same authors are often comparisons between results rather than blunt attacks against the cited works. This three-function based definition and the set of wordings gathered in this study provide a new basis for the design of tools dedicated to citation polarity detection. Indeed, the lexical and grammatical markers characterizing comparison must be taken into account in addition to those expressing a negative evaluation and those expressing doubt.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederique Bordignon, 2022. "Critical citations in knowledge construction and citation analysis: from paradox to definition," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 959-972, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04226-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04226-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04226-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04226-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agnieszka Geras & Grzegorz Siudem & Marek Gagolewski, 2020. "Should we introduce a dislike button for academic articles?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(2), pages 221-229, February.
    2. Guo Zhang & Ying Ding & Staša Milojević, 2013. "Citation content analysis (CCA): A framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1490-1503, July.
    3. Guo Zhang & Ying Ding & Staša Milojević, 2013. "Citation content analysis (CCA): A framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1490-1503, July.
    4. Terrence A. Brooks, 1985. "Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 36(4), pages 223-229, July.
    5. Chi-Shiou Lin, 2018. "An analysis of citation functions in the humanities and social sciences research from the perspective of problematic citation analysis assumptions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 797-813, August.
    6. Ben‐Ami Lipetz, 1965. "Improvement of the selectivity of citation indexes to science literature through inclusion of citation relationship indicators," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 81-90, April.
    7. Stremersch, Stefan & Camacho, Nuno & Vanneste, Sofie & Verniers, Isabel, 2015. "Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 64-77.
    8. Dongqing Lyu & Xuanmin Ruan & Juan Xie & Ying Cheng, 2021. "The classification of citing motivations: a meta-synthesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3243-3264, April.
    9. Jodi Schneider & Di Ye & Alison M. Hill & Ashley S. Whitehorn, 2020. "Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2877-2913, December.
    10. V. Cano, 1989. "Citation behavior: Classification, utility, and location," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 40(4), pages 284-290, July.
    11. Iman Tahamtan & Lutz Bornmann, 2019. "What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1635-1684, December.
    12. Charles Oppenheim & Susan P. Renn, 1978. "Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 29(5), pages 225-231, September.
    13. Henry Small, 2004. "On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(1), pages 71-79, May.
    14. Editorial Article, 0. "Abstracts," Economics of Contemporary Russia, Regional Public Organization for Assistance to the Development of Institutions of the Department of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, issue 3.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brady Lund & Amrollah Shamsi, 2023. "Examining the use of supportive and contrasting citations in different disciplines: a brief study using Scite (scite.ai) data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4895-4900, August.
    2. Linhong Xu & Kun Ding & Yuan Lin & Chunbo Zhang, 2023. "Does citation polarity help evaluate the quality of academic papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4065-4087, July.

    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. Dongqing Lyu & Xuanmin Ruan & Juan Xie & Ying Cheng, 2021. "The classification of citing motivations: a meta-synthesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3243-3264, April.
    2. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 203-216.
    3. Kai Nishikawa, 2023. "How and why are citations between disciplines made? A citation context analysis focusing on natural sciences and social sciences and humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2975-2997, May.
    4. Sehrish Iqbal & Saeed-Ul Hassan & Naif Radi Aljohani & Salem Alelyani & Raheel Nawaz & Lutz Bornmann, 2021. "A decade of in-text citation analysis based on natural language processing and machine learning techniques: an overview of empirical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6551-6599, August.
    5. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    6. Chao Lu & Ying Ding & Chengzhi Zhang, 2017. "Understanding the impact change of a highly cited article: a content-based citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 927-945, August.
    7. Xiaorui Jiang & Jingqiang Chen, 2023. "Contextualised segment-wise citation function classification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5117-5158, September.
    8. Chi-Shiou Lin, 2018. "An analysis of citation functions in the humanities and social sciences research from the perspective of problematic citation analysis assumptions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 797-813, August.
    9. Lina Zhou & Uchechukwuka Amadi & Dongsong Zhang, 2020. "Is Self-Citation Biased? An Investigation via the Lens of Citation Polarity, Density, and Location," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 77-90, February.
    10. Wang, Shiyun & Mao, Jin & Lu, Kun & Cao, Yujie & Li, Gang, 2021. "Understanding interdisciplinary knowledge integration through citance analysis: A case study on eHealth," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    11. Stremersch, S. & Camacho, N.M.A. & Vanneste, S. & Verniers, I.W.J., 2014. "Unraveling Scientific Impact," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2014-014-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    12. Zhang, Chengzhi & Liu, Lifan & Wang, Yuzhuo, 2021. "Characterizing references from different disciplines: A perspective of citation content analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    13. Stremersch, Stefan & Camacho, Nuno & Vanneste, Sofie & Verniers, Isabel, 2015. "Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 64-77.
    14. Iman Tahamtan & Lutz Bornmann, 2019. "What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1635-1684, December.
    15. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.
    16. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Sven E. Hug, 2018. "Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 427-437, February.
    17. Faiza Qayyum & Harun Jamil & Naeem Iqbal & DoHyeun Kim & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2022. "Toward potential hybrid features evaluation using MLP-ANN binary classification model to tackle meaningful citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6471-6499, November.
    18. Ponomariov, Branco & Toivanen, Hannes, 2014. "Knowledge flows and bases in emerging economy innovation systems: Brazilian research 2005–2009," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 588-596.
    19. Liu, Xiaojuan & Wang, Chenlin & Chen, Dar-Zen & Huang, Mu-Hsuan, 2022. "Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    20. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2020. "Telescopic and panoramic views of library and information science research 2011–2018: a comparison of four weighting schemes for author co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 255-270, July.

    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:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04226-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.