A long reference list at the end of a research paper may be the key to ensuring that it is well cited, according to an analysis of 100 years' worth of papers published in the journal Science.This is akin to blogrolling, the citing of others in the hope that one gets cited in return.
The research suggests that scientists who reference the work of their peers are more likely to find their own work referenced in turn, and the effect is on the rise, with a single extra reference in an article now producing, on average, a whole additional citation for the referencing paper.
"There is a ridiculously strong relationship between the number of citations a paper receives and its number of references," Gregory Webster, the psychologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville who conducted the research, told Nature. "If you want to get more cited, the answer could be to cite more people."
Although the results represent a correlation only, and thus don't prove causation, the study calls into question whether judging a paper by the number of its citations really shows that the paper is important. Highly-cited papers may be that way only because they have included more references, not because of their intrinsic importance. Therefore, our view of what constitutes the most important science being done today, as well as who the important scientists are, could be highly skewed, giving a false depiction of scientific progress.
So you're telling me that racial egalitarianism, global warming, and the healthiness of a high-starch/low fat/low meat diet aren't full-proof scientific theories?
ReplyDeleteNever would have guessed politics had something to do with these ideas garnering mainstream acceptance.
Is it really that common that the importance of a scientific paper is judged by its number of citations? But I shouldn't wonder since there are so many more papers being written now concerning everything under (and over, behind, inside, etc.) the sun. And we have all become so accustomed to relying on mechanical systems to tell us what to think and do.
ReplyDeleteExactly like blogging. Never thought about it, but it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteThe big idea Google brought to web search was PageRank. It was inspired, according to Brin, by his seeing hyperlinks between pages as analogous to the way academic citations seem to indicate the most authoritative papers.
ReplyDeleteTrading of mutual citations is quite explicitly talked about, and of course some people try to guess who will be asked to referee their papers and are careful to cite them. Additionally some people try to curry favour with the big shots in their discipline by always citing their papers. And so it goes.
ReplyDelete"Highly-cited papers may be that way only because they have included more references, not because of their intrinsic importance. Therefore, our view of what constitutes the most important science being done today, as well as who the important scientists are, could be highly skewed, giving a false depiction of scientific progress."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the scientific journals are contributing to this with their "impact factor" rating, which is a measure of how often articles in the journal are cited. All the journals seem to advertise their impact factor now, even if its not very high.
I have known for years even before I got my PhD in '69 that public science was corrupt. It has only gotten worse. Peer review and the granting process are simply ways of insuring only the "correct" conclusions are drawn from the work. My major professor was greatly disappointed in me when I went into industry instead of doing a post-doc. I am very glad I made the choices I did.
ReplyDelete