IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i8d10.1007_s11192-024-05102-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which older publications are still highly cited in the field of bibliometrics? Contemporary bibliometric citation classics

Author

Listed:
  • Li Li

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Jiandong Zhang

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Liying Yang

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Ronald Rousseau

    (University of Antwerp
    KU Leuven)

Abstract

We find out which older publications (defined here as published before 1991) are nowadays, i.e. during the period [2013–2022], the most cited in leading bibliometric journals. It is found that Small’s article on co-citation analysis is the most-cited one in these journals, followed by Garfield’s “Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation” and Merton’s article on the Matthew Effect. As expected, also Price figures prominently among colleagues with older, highly-cited publications. Moreover, we performed the same exercise for citations received during the period [2003–2012] and compared the corresponding top twenty lists as a study in the obsolescence of a group of older publications.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Li & Jiandong Zhang & Liying Yang & Ronald Rousseau, 2024. "Which older publications are still highly cited in the field of bibliometrics? Contemporary bibliometric citation classics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 5037-5046, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05102-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05102-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05102-3
    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/s11192-024-05102-3?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.

    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:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05102-3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.