IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i8d10.1007_s11192-023-04781-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the use of supportive and contrasting citations in different disciplines: a brief study using Scite (scite.ai) data

Author

Listed:
  • Brady Lund

    (University of North Texas)

  • Amrollah Shamsi

    (Department of Medical Library & Information Sciences, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences)

Abstract

This study uses citation data from the Scite (scite.ai) web tool to determine which disciplines frequently use citations that either support or contrast previous works. The raw citation type data provided by the scite.ai tool is sorted into categories of “mentioning,” “supporting,” and “contrasting” to identify the disciplines that commonly use supporting citations and those that frequently use contrasting or combative citations. This data from scite.ai was aligned to major academic disciplines, as defined by Web of Science. Medicine has the most combative citations, while mathematics has the least. However, it is important to note that the “combativeness” of disciplines should not be seen as a negative. In fields like medicine, where flawed hypotheses or study findings can have serious consequences, it is necessary to challenge problematic ideas and findings. This study adds a new dimension of depth by not only examining the frequency of mentioning, supporting, and contrasting citation, but also employing and evaluating the efficacy of the scite.ai tool for this purpose.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04781-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04781-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04781-8
    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/s11192-023-04781-8?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Linhong Xu & Kun Ding & Yuan Lin, 2022. "Do negative citations reduce the impact of cited papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1161-1186, February.
    3. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2021. "The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5355-5360, June.
    4. Ivan Heibi & Silvio Peroni, 2021. "A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8433-8470, October.
    5. Eleonora Alabrese, 2022. "Bad Science: Retractions and Media Coverage," CESifo Working Paper Series 10195, CESifo.
    6. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.

    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:128:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04781-8. 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.