"Citation classics" analysis: An approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research

The Science Indicators series has paid little heed to interdisciplinary research. This article seeks (1) to distinguish multi‐ or interdisciplinary (IDR) research from single or monodisciplinary research, and (2) to characterize IDR, i.e., begin to describe how it differs from other research. A pecu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1984-11, Vol.35 (6), p.360-368
Main Authors: Chubin, Daryl E., Porter, Alan L., Rossini, Frederick A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bibliometrics
Biophysics
Chemistry
Citation analysis
Citations
Content analysis
Exact sciences and technology
General aspects
Indicators
Information and communication sciences
Information science. Documentation
Inter disciplinary subjects
Interdisciplinary aspects
Interdisciplinary studies
Library materials
Life sciences
Periodicals
Science
Sciences and techniques of general use
Society
Sociology
Specialized information sources (paper or electronic format)
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Science Indicators series has paid little heed to interdisciplinary research. This article seeks (1) to distinguish multi‐ or interdisciplinary (IDR) research from single or monodisciplinary research, and (2) to characterize IDR, i.e., begin to describe how it differs from other research. A peculiar population of “over‐cited” articles is defined by the Institute for Scientific Information's “Citation Classics.” A sample of 1981 classics (which appear weekly in Current Contents) was examined for suspected interdisciplinary (IDR) content and/or usage. Between 10 and 20% were identified as possibly IDR. A subsample of these was traced through SCI and JCR categories to construct 10‐year citation histories. Content analysis of subject category concentration was also performed. We conclude that citation of a classic follows no set pattern. Time‐ and category‐sensitive indicators are discussed.
ISSN:0002-8231
1097-4571
DOI:10.1002/asi.4630350608