A novel Citation Method?

Possibly several times, any of us has been discussing on the adequateness of our citation method. This initiative is meant to promote a novel criterium based on three different types of citations. The three different citations should have the following meanings:

+x : the cited paper x is fundamental and present work is based on it or this work could not even be done without. (Essential citation)

x :  the cited paper is relevant in the field and it is worth knowing it. (Neutral citation)

-x: this paper is cited because it deals with the same problem, but conclusion or work reported on are to be criticized or rectified (Negative Citation)

Exempli gratia:
———————————————————-
….
Following Smart and Clever [+31], we have extended the standard model [32,33] to the case with a triplet of Higgs bosons. Other authors have introduced a suitable lagrangian where the spontaneous symmetry breaking  is achieved by a pair of fermions hockey jerseys [34]. Silly and Idiot [-35] have introduced the “supersymmetric spell” approach, leading to a bagful of meaningless inconsistent results.

————————————————————

[31] G. Smart, and F. Clever,  53 Impartial Journal of Physics (2007) 192.
[32] S. Weinberg, A Model of Leptons, Phys. Rev.Lett., 19 1264-1266 (1967).
[33] A. replica oakleys Salam in N. Svartholm (a cura di), Elementary Particle Physics: Relativistic Groups and Analyticity, Stockholm, Almquvist Are and Wiksell, 1968, p. 367.
[34] Christopher T. Hill and Elizabeth H. Simmons (2003). “Strong Dynamics and Electroweak Symmetry Breaking”. Physics Reports 381 (4-6): 235
[35] A. Silly, and  Z.W.  Idiot, Journal of Close Friends, 43 (1998) 321

In other words, we should start classifying our citations according to the former three categories.

As a result of the previous novel method for citations, each paper will have three different citation indices: one indicating how many papers benefit from the work; one indicating endorsement of the work and one indicating possible weakness or faults. One cheap jerseys is not compelled to employ the latter.

Limited to the first type of citations, to measure the real impact and to prevent against undesired “tribes of friends”, one could normalize citations dividing by their total number in a paper. E.g if an article cites 7 different papers with the + sign each of them should experience a +1/7 increase in its citation index. This number, in turn may be weighted by, the “relevance” of the citing cheap nba jerseys paper and self-consistency procedures can be applied.

Please note that employing normalization people will be expected to pay attention on what to cite as essential.

[poll id=”1″]

Citation Index cheap nfl jerseys addicts are also kindly asked to express their opinion on the resulting impact indices:

[poll id=”2″]

4 Replies to “A novel Citation Method?”

  1. I strongly oppose the adoption of this convention. The benefit to scientists reading a paper is minimal (assuming reading and not just glancing at). However, as it is now, the citation measures are already used heavily by administrators to ‘measure’ the scientists’ performance. I strongly oppose placing an other tool at their disposal.

  2. Taxonomy on citations could be very helpful indeed, but there are other consequences to be aware of, so that this kind of qualification could be not exhaustive nor useful:
    – some citations could identify theoretical agreement or disagreement to a line of thought, and even if all important [+x] or neutral [x] would identify a “setting”, that could be identified only by the analysis of citations substance;

    – a big consequence of this matter of fact could be a distribution of [+x], [- x ] or [x] signs strongly affected by author’s view, and could not be taken as cited author’s “scientific qualification”.

  3. If there is no ranking of the authoritativeness of the paper making the citations, this is a very dangerous system. A unreliable paper could state that important papers are wrong. Classifying citations is a good idea, taking any sources as authoritative is not. PageRank like algorithms could help here. A de-emphasization of citation indexes in the academic world might be the best answer.

  4. Thank you for the interesting proposal. From a computational view, it would be a dream come true to get this extra information. However, it would be a pain for almost all other aspects, in my opinion. First of all, the third option is problematic. Why the text may point gently to a problem, a “-” sign is a binary signal and much too coarse. I cannot imagine using it very often only to facilitate automatic processing of citations. Second, the reviewing process might get much worse: reviewers might be offended that their paper is cited but not “plussed”. My prediction is that in such a system, authors might (might…) cite less but “plus” every citation given. So, the proposal might be a good way to punish reference-throwers that cite everything and everyone, but from social pressure my predictions is that every citation left would be a “plus” citation.
    [Side thought: basically most citations in the introduction which are not repeated in the main text/summary can be thought of as “neutral ones”, so there is no need in extra signals, I think.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *