In this study, we explicate citing behavior in the writing of scientific papers by presenting a taxonomy of motives to cite. The suggested taxonomy consists of four main categories, which are purely descriptive: Argumentation, Social Alignment, Mercantile Alignment, and Data. These categories are divided into a suggested set of subcategories. We argue that the complexities of citing practice show how little can be assumed about actual citing behavior when studying a finished paper. The discussion supports the claim that it might be misleading to treat all citations as equal in quantitative citation analysis.
%0 Journal Article
%1 erikson2014taxonomy
%A Erikson, Martin G.
%A Erlandson, Peter
%D 2014
%J Social Studies of Science
%K kritik zitationsanalyse
%N 4
%P 625-637
%R 10.1177/0306312714522871
%T A taxonomy of motives to cite
%U http://sss.sagepub.com/content/44/4/625.abstract
%V 44
%X In this study, we explicate citing behavior in the writing of scientific papers by presenting a taxonomy of motives to cite. The suggested taxonomy consists of four main categories, which are purely descriptive: Argumentation, Social Alignment, Mercantile Alignment, and Data. These categories are divided into a suggested set of subcategories. We argue that the complexities of citing practice show how little can be assumed about actual citing behavior when studying a finished paper. The discussion supports the claim that it might be misleading to treat all citations as equal in quantitative citation analysis.
@article{erikson2014taxonomy,
abstract = {In this study, we explicate citing behavior in the writing of scientific papers by presenting a taxonomy of motives to cite. The suggested taxonomy consists of four main categories, which are purely descriptive: Argumentation, Social Alignment, Mercantile Alignment, and Data. These categories are divided into a suggested set of subcategories. We argue that the complexities of citing practice show how little can be assumed about actual citing behavior when studying a finished paper. The discussion supports the claim that it might be misleading to treat all citations as equal in quantitative citation analysis.},
added-at = {2014-07-31T22:00:27.000+0200},
author = {Erikson, Martin G. and Erlandson, Peter},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ffc731d9861474b52c0c5e5dd20c9140/wdees},
doi = {10.1177/0306312714522871},
eprint = {http://sss.sagepub.com/content/44/4/625.full.pdf+html},
interhash = {d32708edf5ccaff11517137fca5db055},
intrahash = {ffc731d9861474b52c0c5e5dd20c9140},
journal = {Social Studies of Science},
keywords = {kritik zitationsanalyse},
number = 4,
pages = {625-637},
timestamp = {2014-07-31T22:00:27.000+0200},
title = {A taxonomy of motives to cite},
url = {http://sss.sagepub.com/content/44/4/625.abstract},
volume = 44,
year = 2014
}