Types and Functions of Citations in Native vs. Non-native Written Medical Research Articles

BackgroundCitation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research.MethodologyA visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact.ResultsVisualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields: Cardiac & cardiovascular systems, Clinical neurology, and Surgery. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research.ConclusionsPopular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.

Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures

This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz‐Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ∼14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all‐sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.

This paper has two aims: (i) to introduce a novel method for measuring which part of overall citation inequality can be attributed to differences in citation practices across scientific fields, and (ii) to implement an empirical strategy for making meaningful comparisons between the number of citations received by articles in 22 broad fields. The number of citations received by any article is seen as a function of the article’s scientific influence, and the field to which it belongs. A key assumption is that articles in the same quantile of any field citation distribution have the same degree of citation impact in their respective field. Using a dataset of 4.4 million articles published in 1998–2003 with a five-year citation window, we estimate that differences in citation practices between the 22 fields account for 14% of overall citation inequality. Our empirical strategy is based on the strong similarities found in the behavior of citation distributions. We obtain three main results. Firstly, we estimate a set of average-based indicators, called exchange rates, to express the citations received by any article in a large interval in terms of the citations received in a reference situation. Secondly, using our exchange rates as normalization factors of the raw citation data reduces the effect of differences in citation practices to, approximately, 2% of overall citation inequality in the normalized citation distributions. Thirdly, we provide an empirical explanation of why the usual normalization procedure based on the fields’ mean citation rates is found to be equally successful.

Smart(er) Citations

This paper examines the similarities and differences in the use of rhetorical citations in research articles in two journal publication contexts in the field of Applied Linguistics, namely Indonesian Journals aimed at a local audience, and International Journals aimed at a global audience. Fifty Discussion Sections from published research articles were taken from the two publication contexts. Results of the analysis indicate a dominant use of integral citations especially verb-controlling type in the Indonesian local corpus. It is suggested that this citation type requires less demand on synthesising various sources cited while Discussion Sections in the International corpus make greater use of non-integral citations which indicates a succinct synthesis of various sources. In terms of function, referring to literature is the most salient function in Indonesian local corpus while attribution is the most dominant function found in the International corpus. Accompanying the textual analysis of citation practices in these journals, Indonesian academics as part of the community of the discipline were interviewed. Their perspectives indicate urgency for results of genre analysis studies to be transformed into teaching materials to assist especially novice writers in the field of Applied Linguistics in understanding English research article writing conventions better.

Citation practices in tourism research: Toward a gender conscientious engagement

The present study probed into the citation behavior and intertextuality use of EFL writers. The literature sections of 12 BA projects and those of 12 MA theses in applied linguistics written by the same writers were compared in terms of intertextuality and citation types. The results showed that the most frequent intertextuality type in both BA projects and MA theses was the unconventional intertextuality. The second frequent type was conventional intertextuality which was more frequent in MA projects due to the educational conditions and the readership. The third frequent type was ‘deceptive’ used equally in both undergraduate and MA projects. As for the citation behavior, the most frequent one in both MA and BA projects was the integral citation whose sub-type ‘verb controlling’ was more frequent in MA and its non-citation subtype was more frequent in BA projects probably due to cultural reasons or because of the students’ ignorance of the functions and applications of citation types. This type was followed by improper citations and non-integral citations in both BA and MA projects. As for the relationship between intertextuality and citation, the results showed a strong relationship between unconventional intertextuality and improper citations in B.A projects, a weak correlation between conventional intertextuality and both non-integral and integral citations in B.A projects, a strong correlation between conventional intertextuality and both integral and non-integral citations in M.A theses and also a weak correlation between unconventional intertextuality and improper citations in M.A theses. Also, in both MA theses and BA projects, conventional intertextuality included all subcategories of non-integral citations and two subcategories of integral citations including verb-controlling and naming. The study could serve MA and BA project raters and the instructors of research courses in undergraduate and graduate levels.

The quality of argument in the discussion section determines the quality of a journal article because in this section authors must argue convincingly so that readers may accept and use their new knowledge claim. This study aims to determine the differences in argument strategies and linguistic realizations in the discussion sections of unaccredited local, accredited national, and reputable international journals in English by Indonesian writers in the field of Language Teaching. The research method used was descriptive qualitative and quantitative research methods (mixed-method) in analyzing differences in argument styles and linguistic features of the discussion sections of the journal articles. Sixty articles were analyzed using the genre-based text analysis method following Swales (1990) and Dudley Evan (1994). The results show that the argument strategies of articles in local, national, and international journals have important differences. The main differences are the discussion sections in the international journals are much longer in word count and use much more references than the local and national journals do. Also, unlike international journal articles, the majority of local journals use an incomplete argument strategy while national journal articles use a semicomplete argument strategy. Yet another difference is that international journal authors tend to use non-integral citations more frequently while local and national journal authors prefer using integral citation types. The similarity among the three journal articles is that the majority of the authors tend to use present tense and past tense in their discussion section rather than present perfect tense and future tense. Keywords: argument strategy, Research article, comparative rhetorical study

Since Swales’ groundbreaking article (1990) on the rhetorical structure of research article introductions, a growing number of studies have explored the move structure of introductions. There is an enormous body of work analyzing citation practices in academic writing. Nevertheless, relatively little attention has been paid to the analysis of citation practices within different moves. This exploratory study of five German research articles investigates the relation of amount and types of citations within the different moves of research article introductions. The description and discussion of the five sample papers results in the following hypotheses: German research article introductions (1) can be divided in a territory-, a niche-, and a project-driven type, (2) prefer non-integral citations, (3) use indirect citations to establish a territory and (4) link the announced research to disciplinary fields using the instrument of direct terminology quotations.

International Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (IJMBioS) is a platform for researchers to publish their research across various disciplines. The journal has been initiated by academicians who specialize in different fields such as cell biology, biochemistry, medical chemistry, medical science, microbiology and public health to name but a few. The primary aim of the journal is to publish original research to enhance our current knowledge of medical, biomedical and public health sciences.
 A researcher spends a significant time in doing research. After the completion of the study, it is the time for the publication of the hard work. However, many researchers are reluctant to write and publish the research paper once the project is completed. The famous saying “publish or perish” is true because timely publication of research paper is essential to progress in their carriers.
 With the aim of promoting both students and scholars’ research, we have made a publication process much easier and faster. That is to say, a researcher will upload the final draft of the research paper. Once the research paper is received, it will be sent to the reviewers for feedback and evaluation. The article will be accepted, returned for revision or rejected. All these process are managed through the online system to expedite the review and publication process.
 As a publication of a research article concludes the research process, we invite scholars and researchers to submit original research articles, reviews, commentaries and case studies. Our experts review board panel will, and the editorial board will be available to answer any queries you have. Additionally, feel free to explore the webpage of the journal to know about the submission process, requirement for publication and get updates on your submission.

Citing previous works is an important rhetorical feature of academic writing and it is challenging for novice writers, especially non-native English writers (NNEWs). However, little is known about how NNEWs cite in each chapter of their master’s (M.A.) theses. This paper thus reports on the citation practice in 24 TESOL M.A. theses written by Vietnamese students. Citation types were first searched on the Antconc software with the use of the Regular Expressions (Regex) written for both conventional and ‘invented’ citing ways by this group of writers, and then based on Thompson and Tribble’s (2001) framework, citation functions were investigated and classified. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with thesis writers and thesis supervisors. Besides the general citation practice by this group of NNEWs, and the different citation functions and types in different chapters of their theses, the study also found that these writers were not fully aware of the significance of citations as a rhetorical device in their thesis writing, and insufficient attention was paid to the in-text citations in the TESOL discourse community in Vietnam. These findings suggest explicit instructions on citations in order to help novice writers to fully acquire the citation use. Keywords: citation type; citation function; Vietnamese writer; Master’s thesis; TESOL DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2016-2203-06

Citation practices of L2 writers in first-year writing courses: Form, rhetorical function, and connection with pedagogical materials

Citation, an indispensible aspect in academic writing, has recently been receiving considerable research attention. This present study empirically delves into citation practices in Master’s theses written by Indonesian student writers. This study employed corpus-based approach. Applying a purposive sampling, there were 7 exemplary theses included in this study. From those theses, it generated 305 citations which then were built as the corpus. A corpus toolkit AntConc3.4.3w was chosen to assist the analysis. Types of citations were analyzed based on Thompson and Tribble’s (2001) framework. Corpus analysis on types of citations revealed that Verb Controlling was more favoured; while Reference form was totally absent. Since citing contributes to succesful writers, this study suggests that citation practices particularly types of citations need to be inculcated in the classroom to help the student writers develop citation skill.

In this paper I explore the ways in which academic citation practices contribute to the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Based on the analysis of a computer corpus of 80 research articles and interviews with experienced writers, the study investigates the contextual variability of citations in eight disciplines and suggests how textual conventions point to distinctions in the ways knowledge is typically negotiated and confirmed within different academic communities. Clear disciplinary differences are identified in both the extent to which writers refer to the work of others and in how they depict the reported information. Writers in the humanities and social sciences employed substantially more citations than scientists and engineers, and were more likely to use integral structures, to employ discourse reporting verbs, and to represent cited authors as adopting a stance to their material. It is argued that these differences in citation practices are related to the fact that the academics actively participate in knowledge construction as members of professional groups and that their discoursal decisions are influenced by, and deeply embedded in, the epistemological and social conventions of their disciplines.