↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

A Small World of Citations? The Influence of Collaboration Networks on Citation Practices

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
A Small World of Citations? The Influence of Collaboration Networks on Citation Practices
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033339
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew L. Wallace, Vincent Larivière, Yves Gingras

Abstract

This paper examines the proximity of authors to those they cite using degrees of separation in a co-author network, essentially using collaboration networks to expand on the notion of self-citations. While the proportion of direct self-citations (including co-authors of both citing and cited papers) is relatively constant in time and across specialties in the natural sciences (10% of references) and the social sciences (20%), the same cannot be said for citations to authors who are members of the co-author network. Differences between fields and trends over time lie not only in the degree of co-authorship which defines the large-scale topology of the collaboration network, but also in the referencing practices within a given discipline, computed by defining a propensity to cite at a given distance within the collaboration network. Overall, there is little tendency to cite those nearby in the collaboration network, excluding direct self-citations. These results are interpreted in terms of small-scale structure, field-specific citation practices, and the value of local co-author networks for the production of knowledge and for the accumulation of symbolic capital. Given the various levels of integration between co-authors, our findings shed light on the question of the availability of 'arm's length' expert reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 4%
Canada 3 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
Switzerland 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 125 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 22%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Master 15 10%
Other 13 9%
Librarian 11 7%
Other 41 28%
Unknown 15 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 34 23%
Computer Science 26 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 6%
Other 36 24%
Unknown 22 15%