IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v84y2010i1d10.1007_s11192-010-0161-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The mathematical review system: does reviewer status play a role in the citation process?

Author

Listed:
  • Alesia Zuccala

    (Leiden University)

Abstract

This paper revisits an aspect of citation theory (i.e., citer motivation) with respect to the Mathematical Review system and the reviewer’s role in mathematics. We focus on a set of journal articles (369) published in Singularity Theory (1974–2003), the mathematicians who wrote editorial reviews for these articles, and the number of citations each reviewed article received within a 5 year period. Our research hypothesis is that the cognitive authority of a high status reviewer plays a positive role in how well a new article is received and cited by others. Bibliometric evidence points to the contrary: Singularity Theorists of lower status (junior researchers) have reviewed slightly more well-cited articles (2–5 citations, excluding author self-citations) than their higher status counterparts (senior researchers). One explanation for this result is that lower status researchers may have been asked to review ‘trendy’ or more accessible parts of mathematics, which are easier to use and cite. We offer further explanations and discuss a number of implications for a theory of citation in mathematics. This research opens the door for comparisons to other editorial review systems, such as book reviews written in the social sciences or humanities.

Suggested Citation

  • Alesia Zuccala, 2010. "The mathematical review system: does reviewer status play a role in the citation process?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 221-235, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0161-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0161-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0161-4
    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/s11192-010-0161-4?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. Soler, José M., 2007. "A rational indicator of scientific creativity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 123-130.
    2. 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.
    3. Alesia Zuccala, 2006. "Modeling the invisible college," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 152-168, January.
    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. Ying Zhang & Cornelia Lawson & Liangping Ding, 2023. "Can scientists remain internationally visible after the return to their home country? A study of Chinese scientists," MIOIR Working Paper Series 2023-01, The Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR), The University of Manchester.
    2. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2013. "Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 383-395, November.

    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. Eduardo Kunzel Teixeira & Mirian Oliveira, 2018. "Editorial board interlocking in knowledge management and intellectual capital research field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1853-1869, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Yi Bu & Binglu Wang & Win-bin Huang & Shangkun Che & Yong Huang, 2018. "Using the appearance of citations in full text on author co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 275-289, July.
    4. Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "Academic inventors as brokers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 843-857, September.
    5. 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.
    6. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Henry Small, 2004. "Why authors think their papers are highly cited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 305-316, August.
    9. Heather A Piwowar & Roger S Day & Douglas B Fridsma, 2007. "Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(3), pages 1-5, March.
    10. Ausloos, Marcel, 2015. "Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 438(C), pages 568-578.
    11. Nigel Harwood, 2008. "Publication outlets and their effect on academic writers’ citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 253-265, November.
    12. Meyer, Matthias & Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. & Duscher, Irina & Just, Alexander, 2018. "Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 24-46.
    13. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Kumiko Miyazaki, 2013. "Evolutionary paths of change of emerging nanotechnological innovation systems: the case of ZnO nanostructures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 829-849, June.
    14. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    15. Alesia Zuccala & Peter Besselaar, 2009. "Mapping review networks: Exploring research community roles and contributions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(1), pages 111-122, October.
    16. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Luisa Mota, 2012. "A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 719-743, December.
    17. Jörn Block & Christian Fisch & Farooq Rehan, 2020. "Religion and entrepreneurship: a map of the field and a bibliometric analysis," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 591-627, November.
    18. Hassan Bougrine, 2014. "Subfield effects on the core of coauthors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1047-1064, February.
    19. Yun, Jinhyuk & Ahn, Sejung & Lee, June Young, 2020. "Return to basics: Clustering of scientific literature using structural information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    20. Manuel Goyanes & Luis de-Marcos, 2020. "Academic influence and invisible colleges through editorial board interlocking in communication sciences: a social network analysis of leading journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 791-811, May.

    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:84:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0161-4. 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.