4.5 Article

How and why are citations between disciplines made? A citation context analysis focusing on natural sciences and social sciences and humanities

期刊

SCIENTOMETRICS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04664-y

关键词

Citation context analysis; Citation content analysis; Natural sciences; Social sciences and humanities; SDG 7; SDG 13

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study uses citation context analysis to explore the characteristics of citation behavior between natural sciences (NS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH). The findings suggest that the purpose and patterns of citation differ between disciplines, and that SSH contributes methodologically to NS.
Some science and technology policies promote collaboration between natural sciences (NS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH) on research topics related to complex societal issues such as climate change. However, there is a lack of empirical research on how and why a discipline uses knowledge from the same or another discipline. This study employs citation context analysis to explore the characteristics of citation behavior between NS and SSH. Specifically, focusing on climate change (SDG 13) and renewable energy (SDG 7), we classified related papers as either NS or SSH. Further, we analyzed how citation behavior differs by patterns of citations between disciplines, such as NS citing NS and NS citing SSH. The findings show that the sections where citations are more likely to be made or the citation purposes significantly differ by each pattern in each topic. In addition, it was common across both topics that NS tended to cite SSH frequently in the methodology section. While a typical collaboration pattern between NS and SSH is assumed as NS contributes methodologically to the solution of SSH research questions, the findings suggest that SSH contributes methodologically to NS. This study sheds new light on the exploration of knowledge flows between disciplines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据