Citation models and research evaluation
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- The article "Citation Models and Research Evaluation" explores the study of citations in science from multiple perspectives, including scientometrics and the science of science.
- The author provides a comprehensive review of literature on citations, citation distributions, and models of citations to understand their relevance to research evaluation and the role of metrics and indicators in that process.
- The article examines how citations relate to peer review and aims to integrate both literatures for a better understanding of each other.
- The fundamental problem in research evaluation is that research quality is unobservable which has implications for conclusions drawn from quantitative studies of citations and citation models.
- To address this issue, the term "indicators" is discussed as an important concept in this context which requires proper causal reasoning when used in practice because entering causal territory may invalidate even valid indicators.
- By combining citation models with proper causal reasoning while acknowledging the fundamental problem about unobservable research quality, progress can be made towards better research evaluation.
- This article serves as a draft for a chapter in the Handbook of Computational Social Science edited by Taha Yasseri forthcoming 2023 from Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Authors: V. A. Traag
Abstract: Citations in science are being studied from several perspectives. On the one hand, there are approaches such as scientometrics and the science of science, which take a more quantitative perspective. In this chapter I briefly review some of the literature on citations, citation distributions and models of citations. These citations feature prominently in another part of the literature which is dealing with research evaluation and the role of metrics and indicators in that process. Here I briefly review part of the discussion in research evaluation. This also touches on the subject of how citations relate to peer review. Finally, I try to integrate the two literatures with the aim of clarifying what I believe the two can learn from each other. The fundamental problem in research evaluation is that research quality is unobservable. This has consequences for conclusions that we can draw from quantitative studies of citations and citation models. The term "indicators" is a relevant concept in this context, which I try to clarify. Causality is important for properly understanding indicators, especially when indicators are used in practice: when we act on indicators, we enter causal territory. Even when an indicator might have been valid, through its very use, the consequences of its use may invalidate it. By combining citation models with proper causal reasoning and acknowledging the fundamental problem about unobservable research quality, we may hope to make progress.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Welcome to our AI assistant! Here are some important things to keep in mind:
- The assistant will only answer questions related to this specific paper.
- Please note that this is not a bot for casual chatting.
- If you want the answer in a language other than the language you chose for navigating the website, simply add "TRANSLATE IN LANGUAGE L" at the end of your query (replace "LANGUAGE L" with the language of your choice).
- For example, you could ask "Can you extract the most important aspect of the paper? TRANSLATE IN SPANISH".
- If you want to keep the history of your questions/answers you should create an account.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.