↓ Skip to main content

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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 150 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 126 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 27%
Unknown 16 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 35 23%
Computer Science 26 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 6%
Other 35 23%
Unknown 23 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,558,515
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#20,174
of 193,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,103
of 156,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#295
of 3,552 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,552 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.