In social sciences, theory or method-based articles and books (in extension- theorists and methodologists) often have many citations unlike empirical and other types of papers. Why? Is this applicable to other fields such as Humanities, Engineering, etc.?
In sociology for instance, works by theorists such as Bourdieu, Giddens, Beck, etc. are cited regularly. In terms of method- based papers, I will use Braun and Clarke's (2006) ''Using thematic analysis in psychology'' as an example. This paper has 23109 citations (and still counting). Why do researchers cite theory and method-based works often?
Dear Emeka, dear Mahfuz.
Indeed interesting ...
Mahfuz is absolutely right. So much is being published, nowadays, that it becomes virtually impossible to enumerate every one of our own readings on a subject, and their global influence on our own ideas... If we need to be honest as we publish our results, one cannot avoid enumerating more than 20 bibliographic references in our works...
Thank you for your interesting question.
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) database covers more than 2,474 of the world's leading academic journals in the social sciences. In general, I may say that there is a difference in citations for social sciences comparing to empirical and other types of papers. This is may be due to the nature of empirical studies which mainly depend on experiments.
Dear Emeka, dear Mahfuz.
Indeed interesting ...
Mahfuz is absolutely right. So much is being published, nowadays, that it becomes virtually impossible to enumerate every one of our own readings on a subject, and their global influence on our own ideas... If we need to be honest as we publish our results, one cannot avoid enumerating more than 20 bibliographic references in our works...
Thank you for your interesting question.
Thanks for sharing. The views of the colleagues are interesting and, in general, I agree with them. Just one small differentiation: It is possible an experimental work to have fewer than 20 references, as in the attached file.
Regards
It depends, may be there are more intirsic factors which needs to supported to derive a conclusion.
However, when different countries are weighted together then field weighting is important since citation patterns differ by discipline in each country.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310544/bis-performance-indicators-uk-share-highly-cited-academic-articles-april-2014.pdf
“Why too many citations for theoretical and methodological articles?”
Dear Emeka, thanks for the invitation. When persons are truthful, I do not see any problem with the number of citations. In my opinion, references should not be limited, neither inferiorly or superiorly. The number of citations may depend of the type of work. It is always convenient to mention all previous works relevant in the subject under study. Works of synthesis of previous results or of recent advances well performed, or revisions of the state of the art, for example, which may require a deep scientific knowledge of the subjects under study, may be of great utility in any area, particularly as a starting point for the development of new research. It may be very unpleasant to see researchers (?) that are not able to understand the results previously achieved in their area of research or even basic knowledge of the area, trying to impose arrogantly or unconscientiously their internal logic to the reality instead of trying to understand slowly and laboriously the logic of the reality. In my opinion, the focus of research must be centered always in the topics under research, not in formal issues.
See “Parallel worlds of citable documents and others: Inflated commissioned opinion articles enhance scientometric indicators”, by Petr Heneberg (2014), a little excerpt of the abstract:
“Abstract - Scientometric indicators influence the standing of journals among peers, thus affecting decisions regarding manuscript submissions, scholars' careers, and funding. Here we hypothesize that impact-factor boosting (unethical behavior documented previously in several underperforming journals) should not be considered as exceptional, but that it affects even the top-tier journals …”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22997/abstract;jsessionid=C1E35234614A20F5A3F315802AB5057C.f03t02
Citations will always be biased, whatever their number in a publication?
Example:
The word Testosterone gives more than 1 million hits in Google Scholar (after 0.05 seconds). Which hits to choose for a publication?
I agree with Muhfaz,
The social science also used experimental group, but in a different manner of other science. In general, these researches depend more on the basic hypotheses and theories, which requires giving citations more than the other.
I agree.
In the case of physical sciences and nearly as a rule, both theoretical and experimental studies are generally linked to previous methodogical, experimental and computational work. Thus, references are needed . Furthermore, these citations are a matter of "profesional decency" (respect for the colleagues that helped pave the way for the study).
Dear Emeka:
Your observation and question are very interesting. I'm not familiar with papers from natural sciences like physics or chemistry, but I can think about a number of reasons.
On one side, I would say that most social research, with its high diversity of schools and paradigms, rarely allows you to confine your literature review to a small set of publications.
In addition, social research is usually less conclusive than natural sciences' research, which generally means that you have to cover a broader range of works that may diverge or pose diverse points of view on a particular topic.
The boundaries of social disciplines are also more porous than in natural sciences. The contributions to your specific research can extend to a variety of fields, which multiplies the universe of works potentially useful.
Many thanks for these insightful answers. Social sciences papers are often longer in length than the natural science, so this may be one of the reasons for many citations. Another may be the issue of controversy that underpins theoretical papers. Scholars may argue for/or against the theoretical viewpoint raised by the paper, and this attracts citations.
Dear Emeka, when I began doing my Masters in education, my supervisor told me immediately that I needed a conceptual framework or theoretical frameworks, and I must cite previous works that are related to my study. I think many students in social sciences are told the same. If I expressed an opinion, I must be backed by what an 'earlier researcher' had commented on. Only the empirical data, discussions and conclusions are fully my own. So we have the situation you have mentioned. Thanks. Have a good day...
Thanks for sharing the question dear @Emeka. What is too many, what is enough in terms of citations?
Let me bring some fine articles about the issue, as well as one research question.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_citations_does_it_take_to_indicate_an_academic_article_is_influential
https://theoreticalecology.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/more-equations-less-citations/
http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13570/is-there-such-thing-as-too-many-references-for-one-paper
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29170/title/Citations--Too-Many--or-Not-Enough-/
Dear Ljubomir Jacić , many thanks for these links. I have accessed them and they are useful.
Dear Emeka,
Because without them applied science would not have.
Thanks Prof Waldemar Koczkodaj, for your sincerity. I think the forces behind the publication of garbage should be dealt with, so that researchers can focus on real/meaningful scientific output. Those who realised that they made mistakes by publishing substandard research should be sincere to open up.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science