Differences in Citation Patterns across Areas, Article Types and Age Groups of Researchers

Marcelo Mendoza

doi:10.3390/publications9040047

Abstract

The evaluation of research proposals and academic careers is subject to indicators of scientific productivity. Citations are critical signs of impact for researchers, and many indicators are based on these data. The literature shows that there are differences in citation patterns between areas. The scope and depth that these differences may have to motivate the extension of these studies considering types of articles and age groups of researchers. In this work, we conducted an exploratory study to elucidate what evidence there is about the existence of these differences in citation patterns. To perform this study, we collected historical data from Scopus. Analyzing these data, we evaluate if there are measurable differences in citation patterns. This study shows that there are evident differences in citation patterns between areas, types of publications, and age groups of researchers that may be relevant when carrying out researchers’ academic evaluation.

Highlights

A seminal contribution to the measure of scientific impact is the one proposed by Eugene Garfield, who noted that the best way to follow the life cycle of a scientific article is through its citations
We study differences in citation patterns considering a large volume of data that covers different areas, types of publications and age group of researchers
Articles are a majority in all areas except Computer Science, in which they cover 31% of the sample

Summary

Introduction

A seminal contribution to the measure of scientific impact is the one proposed by Eugene Garfield, who noted that the best way to follow the life cycle of a scientific article is through its citations. He claims that a relevant article for a community is frequently cited, so by tracking its citations, we can measure its impact [1]. Garfield extended the notion of impact of an article to the impact of a journal, introducing the journal impact factor (IF) Despite their wide use in research evaluation, metrics based on citations have criticisms and limitations. The problem with the use of a unique index that will not consider the specificities of each discipline produces distortions at different levels of research evaluation, both for projects, people, and even institutions [3]

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion