Citation frequencies are commonly interpreted as measures of quality or impact. Yet, the true nature of citations and their proper interpretation have been the center of a long, but still unresolved discussion in Bibliometrics. A comparison of 67,578 pairs of studies on the same healthcare topic, with the same publication age (1–15 years) reveals that when one of the studies is being selected for citation, it has on average received about three times as many citations as the other study. However, the average citation‐gap between selected or deselected studies narrows slightly over time, which fits poorly with the name‐dropping interpretation and better with the quality and impact‐interpretation. The results demonstrate that authors in the field of Healthcare tend to cite highly cited documents when they have a choice. This is more likely caused by differences related to quality than differences related to status of the publications cited.

Applying a recently developed method for measuring the level of specialization over time for a selection of library and information science (LIS)‐core journals seems to reveal that Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) is slowly transforming into a specialty journal. The transformation seems to originate from a growing interest in bibliometric topics. This is evident from a longitudinal study (1990–2012) of the bibliometric coupling strength between Scientometrics and other LIS‐core journals (including JASIST). The cause of this gradual transformation is discussed, and possible explanations are analyzed.

This paper explores the possible citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize using the mathematician Robert J. Aumann as a case example. The results show that the award of the Nobel Prize in 2005 affected not only the citations to his work, but also affected the citations to the references in his scientific oeuvre. The results indicate that the spillover effect is almost as powerful as the effect itself. We are consequently able to document a ripple effect in which the awarding of the Nobel Prize ignites a citation chain reaction to Aumann's scientific ouvre and to the references in its nearest citation network. The effect is discussed using innovation decision process theory as a point of departure to identify the factors that created a bandwagon effect leading to the reported observations.

Abstract This article reports the findings of a bibliometric study of the measurable effects of experience and prestige on researchers' citing behavior. All single authors from two econometrics journals over a 10‐year time period form the basis of the analysis of how experience and prestige affect the number of references in their publications. Preliminary results from linear regression models suggest that two author types can be characterized using this analysis. Review experience seems to be the decisive factor in the data. The article discusses the implications of the findings and offers suggestions for future research within this new and promising area.

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.

Abstract To establish whether the compromised need/the label effect is a frequently occurring phenomenon or not, available studies of the phenomenon are examined and claims are compared with evidence. Studies that reportedly have verified the phenomenon are shown to suffer from technical problems that put the claim of verification in doubt. Studies that have reported low percentages of questions changing from the initial query during large‐scale studies of user‐librarian negotiations could indicate that users are quite often asking for precisely what they want. However, these studies are found not to be definite falsifications, as the librarians did not conduct in‐depth interviews and therefore may have failed to discover the users' real information needs. Whether the compromised need/the label effect is a frequently occurring phenomenon or not cannot be conclusively confirmed or disconfirmed. However, the compromised need/the label effect is not the obvious truism or empirical fact that it has otherwise been claimed to be.

Abstract Bibliographic databases (including databases based on open access) are routinely used for bibliometric research. The value of a specific database depends to a large extent on the coverage of the discipline(s) under study. A number of studies have determined the coverage of databases in specific disciplines focusing on interdisciplinary differences; however, little is known about the potential existence of intradisciplinary differences in database coverage. Focusing on intradisciplinary differences, the article documents large database‐coverage differences within two disciplines (economics and psychology). The point extends to include both the uneven coverage of specialties and research traditions. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed, and precautions which need to be taken are outlined.