IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v61y2004i2d10.1023_bscie.0000041645.60907.57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Part II., The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA

Author

Listed:
  • Tanzila Ahmed

    (Loughborough University)

  • Ben Johnson

    (Loughborough University)

  • Charles Oppenheim

    (Loughborough University)

  • Catherine Peck

    (Loughborough University)

Abstract

Reports the results of a citation study on Watson and Crick's 1953 paper announcing the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The paper has been cited more than 2,000 times since 1961, and there is no sign of any obsolescence to this article. An analysis was undertaken of the journals in which the citations appeared, and of mistakes in the bibliographic citations provided by citing articles. Watson and Crick themselves have only cited their own paper twice since 1961. An analysis was also undertaken of the reasons why the paper was cited; 100 citing articles were identified and read. The reasons for citing were then categorised using the Oppenheim and Renn method. Compared to earlier studies, it was found that a greater proportion of citations were for historical reasons, a smaller proportion of citing articles were actively using the Watson and Crick article, and a similar, but low proportion were criticising the Watson and Crick article.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanzila Ahmed & Ben Johnson & Charles Oppenheim & Catherine Peck, 2004. "Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Part II., The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(2), pages 147-156, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:61:y:2004:i:2:d:10.1023_b:scie.0000041645.60907.57
    DOI: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000041645.60907.57
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000041645.60907.57
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000041645.60907.57?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. Terrence A. Brooks, 1986. "Evidence of complex citer motivations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 37(1), pages 34-36, January.
    2. Jim Taylor, 1995. "A Statistical Analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(2), pages 241-261, March.
    3. Donald O. Case & Georgeann M. Higgins, 2000. "How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(7), pages 635-645.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Pedro Alvarez & Isabel Escalona & Antonio Pulgarín, 2000. "What is wrong with obsolescence?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(9), pages 812-815.
    7. 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.
    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. Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama & Byeongwoo Kang & Masatsura Igami, 2021. "Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6891-6915, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Elizabeth S. Vieira & José A. N. F. Gomes, 2011. "An impact indicator for researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 607-629, November.
    4. Craig Aaen-Stockdale, 2017. "Selfish Memes: An Update of Richard Dawkins’ Bibliometric Analysis of Key Papers in Sociobiology," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-9, May.
    5. Sung-Soo Seol & Jung-Min Park, 2008. "Knowledge sources of innovation studies in Korea: A citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(1), pages 3-20, April.
    6. JingJing Zhang & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "Scientific relatedness and intellectual base: a citation analysis of un-cited and highly-cited papers in the solar energy field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 141-162, January.
    7. Yu, Dejian & Sheng, Libo, 2021. "Influence difference main path analysis: Evidence from DNA and blockchain domain citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    8. Thomas A. Hamrick & Ronald D. Fricker & Gerald G. Brown, 2010. "Assessing What Distinguishes Highly Cited from Less-Cited Papers Published in Interfaces," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 454-464, December.

    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. Thelwall, Mike, 2016. "Are there too many uncited articles? Zero inflated variants of the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 622-633.
    3. 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.
    4. Nigel Harwood, 2008. "Publication outlets and their effect on academic writers’ citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 253-265, November.
    5. Abramo, Giovanni, 2018. "Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 590-597.
    6. 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.
    7. Faiza Qayyum & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2019. "Identification of important citations by exploiting research articles’ metadata and cue-terms from content," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 21-43, January.
    8. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2020. "Deep and narrow impact: introducing location filtered citation counting," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 503-517, January.
    9. Teplitskiy, Misha & Duede, Eamon & Menietti, Michael & Lakhani, Karim R., 2022. "How status of research papers affects the way they are read and cited," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Teresa H. Jones & Claire Donovan & Steve Hanney, 2012. "Tracing the wider impacts of biomedical research: a literature search to develop a novel citation categorisation technique," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 125-134, October.
    15. Shahzad, Murtuza & Alhoori, Hamed & Freedman, Reva & Rahman, Shaikh Abdul, 2022. "Quantifying the online long-term interest in research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    16. Fairclough, Ruth & Thelwall, Mike, 2015. "National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 845-859.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Kim Kapseon, 2004. "The motivation for citing specific references by social scientists in Korea: The phenomenon of co-existing references," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(1), pages 79-93, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:61:y:2004:i:2:d:10.1023_b:scie.0000041645.60907.57. 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.