Jeppe Nicolaisen

Practical potentials of Bradford's law: a critical examination of the received view

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to examine the practical potentials of Bradfords law in relation to core‐journal identification.Design/methodology/approach – Literature studies and empirical tests (Bradford analyses).Findings – Literature studies reveal that the concept of “subject” has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfords law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of “subject” produce quite different lists of core‐journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views.Practical implications – Bradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradfords law needs to be revised.Originality/value – The paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field.

What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines

The paper reviews the literature on disciplinary credit assignment practices, and presents the results of a longitudinal study of credit assignment practices in the fields of economics, high energy physics, and information science. The practice of alphabetization of authorship is demonstrated to vary significantly between the fields. A slight increase is found to have taken place in economics during the last 30 years (1978–2007). A substantial decrease is found to have taken place in information science during the same period. High energy physics is found to be characterised by a high and stable share of alphabetized multi-authorships during the investigated period (1990–2007). It is important to be aware of such disciplinary differences when conducting bibliometric analyses.

The J‐shaped distribution of citedness

A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J‐shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.

The Reference Return Ratio

The paper introduces a new journal impact measure called The Reference Return Ratio (3R). Unlike the traditional Journal Impact Factor (JIF), which is based on calculations of publications and citations, the new measure is based on calculations of bibliographic investments (references) and returns (citations). A comparative study of the two measures shows a strong relationship between the 3R and the JIF. Yet, the 3R appears to correct for citation habits, citation dynamics, and composition of document types – problems that typically are raised against the JIF. In addition, contrary to traditional impact measures, the 3R cannot be manipulated ad infinitum through journal self-citations.

Bradford's law of scattering: ambiguities in the concept of “subject”

Bradfords law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word “subject” and equivalent terms such as “aboutness” or “topicality”, the meaning of “subject” has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfords law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfords law. Traditionally, Bradfords law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfords law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.

The ripple effect: Citation chain reactions of a nobel prize

This paper explores the possible citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize using the mathematician Robert J. Aumann as a case example. The results show that the award of the Nobel Prize in 2005 affected not only the citations to his work, but also affected the citations to the references in his scientific oeuvre. The results indicate that the spillover effect is almost as powerful as the effect itself. We are consequently able to document a ripple effect in which the awarding of the Nobel Prize ignites a citation chain reaction to Aumanns scientific ouvre and to the references in its nearest citation network. The effect is discussed using innovation decision process theory as a point of departure to identify the factors that created a bandwagon effect leading to the reported observations.

A lucrative seat at the table: are editorial board members generally over-cited in their own journals?

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, etc. is recurrently claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective, as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. Consequently, the claim deserves further analyses. The present paper presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members of four Library and Information Science journals analysed at five year intervals from 1995 to 2005. The results do not unambiguously show a tendency to give flattery citations to editors and members of editorial boards in these four journals. Furthermore, any potential effect is found to be irrelevant as the difference in citations is negligible.

Praise the bridge that carries you over: Testing the flattery citation hypothesis

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.

Bibliometric evolution: Is the journal of the association for information science and technology transforming into a specialty Journal?

Applying a recently developed method for measuring the level of specialization over time for a selection of library and information science (LIS)‐core journals seems to reveal that Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) is slowly transforming into a specialty journal. The transformation seems to originate from a growing interest in bibliometric topics. This is evident from a longitudinal study (1990–2012) of the bibliometric coupling strength between Scientometrics and other LIS‐core journals (including JASIST). The cause of this gradual transformation is discussed, and possible explanations are analyzed.

Consensus formation in science modeled by aggregated bibliographic coupling

The level of consensus in science has traditionally been measured by a number of different methods. The variety is important as each method measures different aspects of science and consensus. Citation analytical studies have previously measured the level of consensus using the scientific journal as their unit of analysis. To produce a more fine grained citation analysis one needs to study consensus formation on an even more detailed level – i.e. the scientific document or article. To do so, we have developed a new technique that measures consensus by aggregated bibliographic couplings (ABC) between documents. The advantages of the ABC-technique are demonstrated in a study of two selected disciplines in which the levels of consensus are measured using the proposed technique.