Citation Theories in the Framework of International Flow ofInformation: New Evidence with Translation Analysis

Ziming LiuSchool of Information Management and Systems, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.E-mai/: ziming@info.berke/ey. edu

Citation is a wortdwide phenomenon. It needs to be con-sidered in the international context. This study examinesfour common modalities (physical accessibility, cogni-tive accessibility, perceived quality, and perceivedimportance ) undertying the complex citation practice bytranslation analysis. In an analysis of the Chinese literaturein library and information science, it was found that thereis a very strong correlation between languages cited andlanguages translated (r= 0.978). The overall national cita-tion pattern of foreign publications is highly correlated withits translation pattern (r = 0.897). There is approximately57”A overtap between the group of the 60 most heavilycited authors and the group of the 60 most frequentlytranslated authors. Highly cited publications are morelikely to be translated (54.5 vs. 13.8°A ).

Introduction

Citation studies have evolved today into two majorschools of thought: Normative theory and microsocio-logical perspective. The normative theory school viewscitation as a merit-granting process and, therefore, cita-tion analyses can be employed as quality indicators forevaluating the influence of an individual researcher, aca-demic institution, or publication. The microsociologicalperspective questions the validity of normative assump-

tion because citation is a complex process ( Liu, 1993 ).Crane ( 1972) argued that the use of citation linkage ismerely an approximate, rather than an exact, measure ofintellectual debt. Dieks and Chang ( 1976) thought theinfluence of an article is not solely determined by its sci-entific significance, but also by other extrinsic factorssuch as the locale of the author. Garfteld ( 1979) furtherargued: “The citation picture is not a definitive one, sim-ply because scientific merit is not always the sole reason

an author will cite a paper published in a particular jour-

Rcvei\cd No!cmher 13. 19’+5:rtniscd Jimuiwj 12, 1996: acccp!ed Jan-uary 12. 1996.

~’ 1997 John Wile> & Sons. Inc.

nal. Such factors as the reputation of the cited authorand the visibility, prestige, and accessibility of the citedjournal may affect, to a greater or lesser degree, the workan author chooses to cite. ” There has been an increasingunderstanding that citation is a complex behavior (e.g.,

Brooks, 1986; Sandison, 1989). No one knows, not evenfor some frequently cited authors, exactly why peoplecite some of their works more than others ( Hooten,1991).

This study, acknowledging that citation is a complexintellectual practice, attempts to explore factors whichcontribute to the frequency of citation. It also suggestsways of categorizing these factors, while at the same time

recognizing that the interplay among these factors is far

more complex than can be discussed here.More specifically, it will attempt to explore the follow-

ing questions:

(1)

(2)

(3)

How do languages cited correlate with languagestranslated?How do citations of the publications published inparticular countries correlate with translations?What is the relationship between the group of mostheavily cited authors and the group of most fre-

quently translated authors?(4) Is there any observable difference between the most

frequently cited publications and less frequentlycited publications in terms of translation?

Review of Related Citation Studies

1. international Cilation Studies

Citation is a complex practice, but citation across na-tional boundaries is an even more complex issue. Forexample, the language and place of publication of docu-ments are important factors affecting whether they willbe cited by other authors. One may not cite an importantand pertinent article because he was not aware of it,

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE. 48(1) :80-87, 1997 CCC 0002-8231 /97/010080-08

could not obtain it, or could not read the language in

which it was published ( Lawani & Bayer, 1983).

By examining the patterns of international flow of in-

formation such as mails and citations in scholarly jour-nals. Deutsch ( 1956) proposed the theory of cycles of

diffusion, where the proportion of imported flow growsat first. then the domestic production catches up, andlater the imported flow decreases (see also Pool, 1990 ).

Foster ( 1968) examined the citations in several key

library science journals in an attempt to determine theuse of foreign and international journals. Earle and Vick-

ery ( 1969) analyzed a sample of citations made in 1965in the United Kingdom social science literature accord-

ing to subject. bibliographic form, country of origin, lan-guage, and date. The aim of this study was to obtain aquantitative indication of literature use within theUnited Kingdom. [t was found that of cited social sci-ence items, 89% were in English, 64% were to items pub-lished in the [JK. and 16% to US items. Distribution of

source items generally followed a pattern similar to thatof language.

Crane’s classic book ( 1972) also touched the interna-

tional citation issue. She found that articles in non-West-ern journals were less likely to be cited than were thosepublished in Western journals.

In their article on citation patterns in library sciencedissertations completed at the schools with ALA accred-itation, LaBorie and Halperin ( 1976) also discussed lan-guage and place of publication. They chose four language

categories for the sample of citations: English, German.French, and other. They found that English was most

frequently cited, at 88.67. German accounted for half ofthe foreign language citations, indicating that therewould be only trace percentages of their other non-En-glish Ianguagcs ( French was 0.27.).

Lawani ( 1977) examined the professional literatureused by American and French agronomists. The distri-bution by language of the citations by American andFrench agronomists showed that 45% of the publications

used by French authors were in languages other thanFrench, while only 2?+ of the literature used by Ameri-

cans were in foreign languages. Reasons contributing tothe low utilization of foreign publications were cognitiveinaccessibility of publications in foreign languages, andthe perceived unimportance of foreign literature.

Line ( 1979 )did a study on the influence of the type ofsources used on the results of citation analyses. The re-sults show that UK and US journals and monographsdiffer in the distributions of their references to publica-

tions of different countries. Monographs are three timesas likely as journals to cite publications of countries otherthan the UK or USA, and a good deal less likely to citeUS publications.

Cronin’s ( 1981 ) analysis of transatlantic citation pat-terns in educational psychology finds that authors dis-play an inward-looking citation pattern (American and

British scholars cite a preponderance of US and UKworks, respectively ). He summarized reasons for this

pattern as proximity to local colleagues, ease of access to

domestic publications, linguistic isolation, etc.In Herrnan’s study ( 1991), English-language journal

literature in librarianship and information science wassubjected to a citation analysis with the aim of discover-ing the degree to which authors from UK and US arereceptive to foreign literature. It was found that UK andUS authors alike cited their own national literatures, in

excess of the proportion each contributed to the pool ofcitable articles. Possible explanations for the greater pa-rochialism shown by US authors are found in the areasof author awareness of the potentially uwful material,accessibility of such material, and its ( perceived ) quality.

A bibliometnc analysis of geology publications by Re-guant and Casadel15 ( 1994) finds that the citing of non-English literature by most English-speaking authors isscarce or nonexistent. It also reveals that many non-na-tive English speakers published their studies in English.while the reverse is not found.

2. Physical Accessibility

Soper ( 1976 ) showed that physical accessibility mightinfluence the probability of citation. Gordon’s article( 1979) on the deficiencies of scientific information ac-cess and output in developing countries shows that theproblems which researchers in developing countries ex-

perience in accessing scientific information are a major

factor inhibiting the quality and quantity of their ownscientific output. He pointed out that authors from de-veloping countries were faulted for giving inadequate ref-erences to the relevant literature when they submittedpapers for publication.

There seems to be a tendency for authors publishingin foreign countries to publish in more, rather than less,developed countries. Arunachalam and Markanday( 1981) noted that a large percentage of the more-cited

articles by Australian and Canadian authors were pub-lished in the UK and the US. They also stated that theproximity of Canada to the US and the close political tiesof Australia and Canada with both the US and the UKfacilitate scientific exchange.

A study by Lancaster and others ( 1990) uses datafrom studies of Philippine scientists and Korean mathe-maticians and suggests that the place of publication mayexert some influence on citation behavior. They alsonoted that scientists are more likely to cite domestic

sources when publishing in national journals than whenpublishing internationally.

3. Cognitive Accessibility

In addition to geographical distance, Menou ( 1983)also noted that cultural distance is another factor which

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—January 1997 81

makes it difficult for developing countries to access in-formation.

Garfield’s study ( 1984) of Latin American researchfinds there was an obvious pattern of high national “self-citation. ” This high level of “insularity” also suggeststhat the cognitive and physical inaccessibility of foreign

publications, especially lack of awareness of foreign pub-lications, may be factors influencing this citation pattern.

Garfield and Welljams-Dorof ( 1990 ) conducted a ci-tation analysis of language use in international research.They warned that researchers in native English-speakingcountries risk being ignorant of significant findings re-ported in languages other than English. They noted thatlearning foreign languages is a “valuable professional as-

set for researchers,” which enables them “to appreciatemore deeply the expression of other nations and cul-

ture. ”For general discussions of language barriers, see Ellen

(1979 ), Large (1983) and Wood (1967).

4. Perceived Quality and Importance

Ithas been noted by many authors that there is a con-siderable body of evidence to show that citation countscorrelate with a variety of quality indicators ( Cronin,1984; Hagstrom, 1971). For example, a number of stud-ies have addressed the fact that there is a high correlationbetween citation counts and rankings of departmentsand institutions (Anderson, Narin, & McAllister, 1978;Oppenheim, 1995). Lawani and Bayer ( 1983) foundthat highly rated articles tended to be highly cited.

An interesting study by Hooten ( 1991 ) examines fac-tors which may explain the frequency and nature of theuse of documents overtime. It finds that frequently citeddocuments were used at a stable, higher level for a longerperiod of time. Less frequently cited documents, how-ever, were cited immediately following publication and,thereafter, their use rapidly diminished. These findingssuggest that using citation counts to evaluate the qualityof an author’s work would be most reliable some yearsafter publication.

Citation is also related to the perceived importance ofone’s work. Gartleld ( 1979) stated: “Since authors referto previous material to support, illustrate, or elaborateon a particular point, the act of citing is an expression ofthe importance of the material.”

Oppenheim and Renn’s study ( 1978) examines thereasons why certain old papers were still highly citedmany years following their publication.

Limitations of Previous Studies

( I ) In a recent review of citation research, Liu ( 1993 )

noted that very few systematic studies focus on theproblems of citation practice in developing coun-

tries or the diffusion of knowledge across national

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

boundaries. Most studies were conducted in En-glish-speaking countries where factors such as phys-ical accessibility and language barriers were ne-glected, thereby failing to provide a comprehensivepicture of the complexit y of citation behavior.A number of studies devoted to why people cite de-veloped classification schemes of reasars for cita-

tion. But the factors (i.e., cognitive and physicalaccessibility ) underlying the citation process havenot received sufficient attention.It has been a common limitation that major citationindexes (e.g., Social Science Citation Index and Sci-

ence Citation Index) do not cover all literature and,especially, lack coverage of non-English literatureand third world publications. This incomplete basisis likely to result in a distorted picture of citation.There are numerous studies that suggest that cita-

tion counts correlate with quality indicators such aspeer review ( Lawani & Bayer, 1983) and honorificaward (Cole & Cole, 1967). But a single quality in-dicator cannot capture the complexity of citationpractice. Imagine a publication of high quality and aperson in a foreign country who is not aware of it,cannot get it, or cannot understand the language inwhich it was published. How can he or she cite it,unless it is taken from a bibliography in someoneelse’s work without the actual text having been read?“Citation is coloured by a multitude of factors, notall of which have to do with the accepted conven-tions of scholarly publishing. Social and psychologi-cal factors play a part.” Cronin’s ( 1984) insightmakes sense.There is poor treatment of indicators. Lawani andBayer ( 1983) noted: “Most studies entail peer eval-uation of papers which had been published severalyears before evaluations. Hence, it cannot be as-sumed that the peer ratings and the citations were

totally independent measures.” Bensman ( 1982),and Gottfredson and Garvey ( 1980) also criticizedthe practice of generalizing samples of eminent sci-entists to study correlations between citedness andthe quality indicators.

More information on the limitations of citation stud-ies, can be found in Cronin ( 1984), Garfield ( 1979),MacRoberts and MacRoberts ( 1989 ), and in the recentreviews by Baird and Oppenheim ( 1994), and Liu

(1993).

The Role of Citation and Translation in the Contextof International Flow of Information

Generally speaking, there are at least four major fac-tors determining citation practice.

( I ) Physical accessibility: If one is not aware of an arti-cle or cannot obtain it, it will not be read.

(2) Cognitive accessibility: If one faces difficulties in un-derstanding an article, or cannot read the language

82 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—January 1997

in which it was published, identification of its

content, quality, and significance will be unreliable.

There is a considerable body of evidence to suggestthat domestic publications are more heavily cited thanpublications in foreign languages, which indicates that

cognitive and physical accessibilities are among the ma-jor factors.

(3)

(4)

Perceived qua/itl: If an article is consider to be ofpoor quality. it may be less likely to be cited. It ispossible that a poor quality publication may invitenegative citation, but a number of authors believed

this situation is rare (e.g., Meadows. 1974: Garfield,

1979).Pmwivcd .~ign(jkunce: If an article is not scientifi-cally significant. it maybe less likely to be cited, eventhough it is physically and cognitively accessible.

The above four major factors are dynamically in-tertwined and therefore cannot be treated in isolation.Suppose an author believes a particular publication is ofhigh quality or importance. He/she may change his/her

mind after being exposed to new publications. This is an

extraordinarily complex issue. In this study, we simplyassume that the interaction of the four principal factorsare the major determinants of citation practice. It ishoped that this crude typology of the four major factorswill provide a basis for a more sensitive analysis of cita-tion practice.

It is unlikely that anyone will devise a perfect indica-

tor which captures every conceivable citation factor, butit does seems feasible to develop one that captures the

most common modalities (Small, 1982 ). Translationcan be used an indicator when we explore the interna-tional perspective of citation practice, since it is heavilyinfluenced by the above four major factors. Both citationand translation reflect the dissemination and utilizationof information across national boundaries. For example,

a Russian book cited or translated by a person in the USconstitutes a flow of information from Russia to the US.Citing and translating are within the sphere of formalcommunication of science. Like citation, translation canbe viewed as credit-granting. One of the consequences oftranslation is confernng intellectual respectability on thesource publications.

Methodology

i, Dalu Cfdlecf ion

The study is built on an analysis of citations andtranslations in the Chinese library and information sci-ence literature. Translation data were mainly collectedfrom lnde.~ c?fChinese newspapers and magazines, Li-brar~’ science abstracts, In~ormation science abstracts,

Index to papers in library science [1890-1949], Booksand papers in library, information, and archival sciences[1949- 1980], and Index to paper.~ in library and infor-mation science [198 1-1989].

Citation data were collected from seven major Chi-nese journals in libra~ and information science from

1983 to 1990: Bulletin of China’s Society for Scientificand Technical Information, Bullelin of Library A ssocia-t ion of China, Information Science, Journal of Informa-tion Science, Knowledge of Library and Information, Li-brary and Information Services, and Sichuan Librar~’Bulletin.

2. Data Analysis

A,

(1)

(2)

(3)

B.

(1)

(2)

Translation

The name of the first author, together with the titleand year of publication were recorded.We also noted the countries of authors of sourceitems and the language it was direct/y translatedfrom, For example, an article ( originally in Engtish )was published in Russian translation, and it was

later translated to Chinese from the Russian version.

In this case, we think the Chinese translation wasfrom Russian, even though it was originally in En-glish. Any bias introduced by this criterion is mini-mal because only four such items were found.Translating a book cannot be treated equally withtranslating an article as far as the dissemination andutilization of information is concerned. We try toestablish this relationship by assuming arbitrarilythat one book should be weighted to be equal to sixarticles when we are identifying the people whosepublications have been most translated.

Citations

We keep track of the languages in which the sourceitems were published. This gives us a perspective oninternational and interlingual information flowsuch as citation and translation pattern.The country of a source item is determined here bythe institutional affiliation of the first author. For ex-ample, Lawani and Bayer’s article in Journa/ oJ/heAmerican .!jocie[)’,~i]rInjbrmation .Wence ( 1983 ) is

regarded as from Nigeria according to the institu-tional affiliation of Lawani, although it was pub-lished in the United States. This information wasobtained by searching Social Science Cilat ion Indcrand Science Citation Inde.r, or by consulting theoriginal sources. We adopt the method used by Gar-field and Welljams-Dorof ( 1990 ): [f a US address islisted, the source item is credited to the UnitedStates, even if the first author is a visiting scholarfrom another country working at a US lab while onsabbatical or other leaves of absence. This method isnot perfect because it involves compounding fac-tors, but the bias it creates appears to be trivial.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—January 1997 83

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

The name of the first author is recorded. Again, La-wani and Bayer’s article ( 1983) is assigned to La-wani because he was the first author.We have noticed that some Chinese authors misusedthe inversion of first name and last name when cit-ing a source item in Western languages. We cor-rected this misuse.Prolific authors may be more likely to have morepublications cited and translated. In order to differ-entiate the most heavily cited publications from the

less frequently cited publications of the same author,we also record the date of publication and the title ofeach source item under each author.Incomplete bibliographic items occasionally occur,and they are not taken into consideration in thisstudy. A few articles only include titles of sourceitems in their references, which make it difficult toidentify authors and countries of source items.We differentiate citation of a source item in lan-guages other than Chinese from a source item whichis a Chinese translation. Since physical and cogni-tive accessibilities are the primary concern of thisstudy, and citing publications in Chinese translationtends to inflate the citation rate of foreign literature,all possible care was taken to eliminate the effect andto make the citation counts as accurate as possible.

New Evidences with Translation Analysis

1. HOWTDo Languages Cited Correlaie with LanguagesTranslated?

Ithas been acknowledged that cognitive accessibilitymay affect one’s citation behavior. In this section, we willlook for evidence from language use from citation andtranslation within a specific country and see howstrongly both are correlated. Old materials are morelikely to be cited than translated, because one of the prin-cipal functions of translating is to increase the currentawareness and thus facilitate the sharing of informationamong people with common interest from different partsof the world (Carpenter, 1988). In order to avoid thispotential bias, we limit our analysis to source items thatwere published from 1983 to 1990 with the goal of ex-amining the flow of languages in the context of citationand translation.

As Table 1 shows, there is a high correlation betweenthe citation and the translation of languages in the

context of transborder information flow ( r = 0.978 ).

2. HOW DO Cited Publicationsfrom Par(ictdarCountries Correlate with Translations?

It is little doubt that physical accessibility to publica-tions from a foreign country may influence the citation

of that country. Citation data in the Chinese literatureshow a general pattern: References in languages otherthan Chinese tend to be slightly older ( from 1 to 2 years )

TABLE 1. Language use in citation and translation ( 1983-1990).*

Number of Number ofLanguages citation (X) translation (Y)

English 1,590 925French 49 30German 86 I04Japanese 131 250Russian ~80 302

* Ave. of X = 427: SDof X = 587; Ave. of Y = 322: SDof Y = 317:r= O.978.

than references in Chinese. This suggests the physical ac-cessibility may be the factor because acquiring and pro-

cessing publications from foreign countries requires alonger period of time than for domestic publications.

This pattern was also confirmed by Arunachalam andMarkanday’s ( 1981) bibliographic analysis of scientificjournals of Australia, Canada, India, and Israel. Theyfound that “most Indian journal articles borrow heavilyfrom overseas journals, though the borrowing is fromslightly older literature. ”

We have adopted the method in the above section andrestricted source items to those which were publishedfrom 1983 to 1990, when we examine the flow and utili-zation of foreign publications in citation and translation

context.As Table 2 shows, the overall national citation pattern

of the publications of foreign countries is highly corre-lated with translation patterns.

It is worth noting that comelation measures associa-tion, and association is not the same as causation. Gen-

erally speaking, citation and translation are independentvariables. The high correlation between citation and

translation only suggests that they may be influenced bycertain common factors ( ie., cognitive and physical ac-cessibility, perceived quality and importance).

TABLE 2. Citation and translation of publications from 8 countries(1983-1990).*

Coun- Number of Number oftries citation (X) translation (Y)

Australia 59 26Canada 93 36France 37 21Germany 62 88Japan 131 250UK 398 148us 834 590USSR ~80 302

* Ave. of X = 237: SDof X = 254,6; Ave. of Y = 182.6: SDof Y =182.7: r= 0,897.

84 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—January 1997

3, M ‘hut 1,sthe Relat ion,ship bet wv’cn fhc Group qfMo.w

[~w~ilj <’i(wl.1 tt(hcxv and (he Gr(ntp oj’Mo.s(Freqtlcntl~’ Translated.4 u(hors?

From the macrosociological perspectives, the above

two sections examine the national patterns in citation

and translation by presenting language use and publica-

tion use. respectively. In the following sections, we will

continue this endeavor by exploring the relationship be-tween citation and translation from microsociologicalperspectives. Because of the language difficulties, we

limit ourselves to analyzing publications in English.Groups of the 60 most heavily cited authors and the

60 most translated authors are listed in Appendix A.

Groap 1 (cilcd AND irunslaied) As shown by Ap-

pendix A, there are 34 authors in this group, representingapproximately 57@i overlap between these two sets. Thisalso indicates that heavily cited authors tend to be thosewho are frequently translated authors and vice versa.

Group .? ((itcd hilt NOT lran.slatedj One subgroupconsists of the authors of classic works ( Bradford, Lotka.and Zipf, etc ). Another group contains prolific authorswho have many works cited: most of their works were

cited less frequently during 1983 and 1990. This againsu~ests that there are certain connections underlying ci-tation and translation behavior. We will further explorethis phenomenon in the next section.

Gr(nq~ 3 ( lran.sluied hzit NOT cited) There are threesubgroup here.

Subgroup A. Those who had close professional con-

tacts with their Chinese counterparts (e.g., Lin, S. F. andLin, T. M.).

Subgroup B. People who wrote articles about China.

The foreign impression of China may invoke great inter-est among Iibrau and information professionals inChina. and is more likely to be translated.

Subgroup C. Those who wrote on fashionable top-ics, such as CD-ROM applications. networking. andso on.

4, 1,s There.4 n? Oh.servahlc D(flivww hetwwn theA!(Lv( Ilcavilj and I.c,v.s ffcujilj’ Cit cd Publications in

Tertnv (JTran.slaii(m.”

Publications cited five times or more are presented inAppendix B. As Appendix B shows, 18 of the 33 mostheavily cited publications in the English language arejournal articles. and a overwhelming majority of thesearticles appeared in prestigious journals such as: Journal({/’D(J<14tnt’tl[a~i(Jr~(4), Journal oft hi).4 merican Societ.v

,~(~rlrl~iwnla[itm S<icnce ( 3 ), C(Jtnitll(ni[’atit~n.T of ACM

( I ), J(nowal o[”lnfiv-nmtion Science ( 1), Nature ( 1), andScien(c ( I ). This indicates that they were probably most

TABLE 3. Highly tiled and less frequently cited publications in rela-tion to tmnslation. *

Translated Not translated

33 Publications with 5or more cilaiions 18(54.5’;) 15 (45.5’: )

IXI Publications with2 citations ?S ( 13.8’:;) 158 (86.2”4)

*2=x 29..?5:df= 1:{) <0.01

heavily cited because of their potentially high quality,and/ or the availability y of thess journals, since presti-gious journals are supposed to have higher quality out-put, and more likely to be subscribed to.

We have also identified a set of 158 publications re-

ceiving two citations. Table 3 shows that highly cited

publications are more likely to be translated ( 54.5 vs.13.8%, .Xz = 29.35, p <0.01 ), which indirectly indicatesthat physical accessibility, cognitive accessibility, per-ceived quality and importance, and /or their interactionwill influence citation behavior.

Towards a Fuller Understanding of Citation Theories

The normative theory of citation focuses on the merit-granting and the quality issues. The school ofmicroscci-ological perspective argues that citation is a very com-plex behavior, which cannot be captured subjectively bythe quality indicators. This study is a preliminary at-tempt to examine the four most common modalities un-derlying the complex citation practice indirectly bytranslation analysis. The evidence presented in this studysuggests that there are certain connections between thetwo schools of thought. As LeydesdorfT ( 1987) pointed

out: “When one argues in favour ofa sociological theoryof citation based solely on the citation practices of scien-tists, one loses the cognitive perspective.” Both cannot betreated in isolation and should not be viewed as entirelyconflicting. The absence of satisfactory theones, in part,reflects the long-term oversimplification of thinking interms of two schools. The dynamic linkage of them is anecessary step in the quest for the satisfactory theories ofcitation, as shown by the four major factors Physical andcognitive accessibility, perceived quality, and impor-tance.

Citation is a universal phenomenon. It needs to beconsidered in the international context. The four-foldscheme proposed above could provide insight into “amore rounded and balanced appreciation of what cita-tion entails” ( Cronin, 1984).

Acknowledgments

The helpful suggestions from Prof. Yale Braunstein,Prof. Michael Buckland, Alan Inouye, and the anony-mous referees are gratefully appreciated.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—Januay 1997 85

Appendix A: Groups of the Most Heavily Cited andTranslated Authors (Publications in English from1983 to 1990 Only)

Group 1 (Heavily Cited AND Frequently Translated): 34

Arrow, K.Austin, D.Becker, J.Bernal, J.Borko, H.Brookes, B.C.Cleverdon. C. W.Davis, C. H.Foskett, A. C.Garfield. E.Hayes, R. M.Heaps, H. S.Kuhn, T. S.Lancaster. F. W.Line. M. B.Luhn, H. P.Machlup. F.

Meadow, C. T.Mooers, C, N.Popper, K. R.Porat, M. E.Price, D. J.Ranganathan, S. R.Rae, R. 1. K.Salton. G,Saracevic, T.Shannon, C. E.Shera. J. H.SIamecka, V.Stevens. R.Stueart, R. D.Van Rijsbergen. C. J,Vickery, B.C.Weiner, N.

Group 2 (Heavily Cited but NOT FrequentlyTranslated): 26

Bookstein. A.Bradford, S. C.Buckland, M. K.Chen, C. C.Chen, Y. S.Coile, R. C.Cooper. W. S.E~he, L.Fairthorne, R. A.Field. B. J.Kent, A.King, D. W.Lawani, S. M.

Lotka, A. J.Maron, M. E.Meadows. A. J.Neil, S. D.Orr, R. H.Pao, M, L.Radecki, T.Robertson, S. E.Simon, H. A.Smith, L. C,Yovits, M. C.Yu, C. T.Zipf, G. K.

Group 3 (Frequently Translated but NOT HeavilyCited: 26

Atherton, P.Bearman, T. C.Bottle, R. T.Busha, C. H.Campbell. H. C.Fisher, R, P.Gough, C.Harrison, K. C.Henry. W. M.Hunter, E. J,Karl, R. D.Katz, W. A.Kerr. Y. Y.

Kish, J. L,Lin, S. F,Lin, T. M.Maier, H. J.Martin. S. K.McGarry, K. JRorvig, M. E.Sacheva, M. S.Salmon, S. R.Simpson, I. S.Spivack, J. F.Tedd, L. A.Tricker, R. 1.

Appendix B: The 33 Most Heavily Cited English-Language Publications (1983-1990)

Bradford, S. C. ( 1934). Sources of information on specific subjects.Engitreerirrg 26, 85-86.

Brookes, B. C. ( 1968). The derivation and application of the Bradford-Zipf distribution, Journul c?fDcxrtm<~n(u[i[]n,24,247-265.

Brookes, B. C. ( 1969), Bradford’s law and the bibliography of science.Nu[urr, .?.?4,953-956.

Brookes, B. C. ( 1977). Theory of the Bradford law. Anmra/ ~ff)ocu.mouu{ion, 33, 180–209.

Brookes, B. C, ( 1980). Measure in information science: Objective andsubjective metrical space. Journul oj’the ,4mericun Socic!j,.fiw Ir@r-mu{ion Science. 31, 248–255.

Brookes. B. C, ( 1980-1981 ), The foundations of information science.Journal ol’ln{iwmut!onScience. 2, 125-133,209-221, 269-275; 3,3-12.

Coile. R. C. ( 1977). Lotka’s frequency distribution of scientific pro-ducti vity. Jourrrul of[he American Societ.r’,lbrInfiwmation .$cience,28, 366-370.

Foskett. A. C. ( 1982). Subjcc( approach [o itr/iJrma/ion (4th cd.). Lon-don: C. Bingley.

Garfield, E. ( 1979). Ciia/ion indcving-lts iheor.v und application inscien(t~,!cdmologj,. und humamties. New York: Wiley.

Heaps, H. S. ( 1978). In fi>rmu!ionrc!rievul, compuialional and /heoret-icul USIWC[.S.New York: Academic Press,

King. D. W., Roderer, N. K., & Olsar, H. A. (Eds.). ( 1983). Keypa-pcr.! In Ihc ecwromic.~o/”ir@rmuliorr.White Plains, NY: KnowledgeIndustry Publications.

Kuhn. T. S. ( 1962). The .sfruc[nreofwiur(~fic revohflion. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Lancaster. F. W. ( 1977’). The meusuremetu and (Zvalua[ionofiibrar.r,.scrvi<c~.Washington: Information Resources Press.

Lancaster, F. W. ( 1978). To]~,ard.spaperkwr in/iwmu(ion .!~,.slcms.NewYork: Academic Press.

Lancaster, F. W. ( 1979). Itr/i)rmati<m re!ricval s>.~tem.$:Charac!eris-ticv, !cv[ing andmahfa[ion. New York: Wiley,

Lancaster, F. W, ( 1986). }“ocabu/ar~’con/r(]//i~rirr/imnu[ion re(rieva/.Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press.

Lotka. A. J. ( 1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productiv-ityy. Jm/rna/ offhc Uti.shirr~lmr.4cudem~, o/’Scicncc, )6, 3 17–323.

Luhn, H. P. ( 1958). The automatic creation of literature abstracts.IBM Journul o/’Rc.wurch and Dcvcdopmerrr,2, 159-165.

Machlup. F., & Mansfield. U. ( 1983). The ,s(l{dl,(~/’in/iwmu/wr: In[er-disciplinurr Incssug(>.s.New York: Wiley.

Porat, M. U. ( 1977). [~finvna{ion economy. Washington: US Govern-ment Printing Press.

Price, D. ( 1965). Networks of wientific paper. Science, f49, 510-515.Rae, 1. K. R. ( 1983). Quantitative mr{hodsji>r Iibrar.r,and in/i]rmation

.j(,icnct,.New York: WiIcy.Robertson, S. E., & Jones, K. S. ( 1976). Relevance weighting of search

terms. Jmtrnul ~j’[hc .4nr<~ricunShcici], /iJrin/i>rmalion Science, 27,129-146.

Salton, G. ( 1975). D)qnamic in/imna!ion and librar~qpr[~c[>.~.~ing.Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Salton. G. ( 1980). Automatic information nmieval. Compu@r, 13,4 I-56.Salton, G.. & McGill. M. J. ( 1983). lnlroduc~iwr [o modern in/iwma-

tion rc[ricwd. New York: MeCraw-Hill.Salton. G,. Fox. E,A.. & Wu, H. ( 1983). Extended Boolean informa-

tion retrieval. Communicutimrs @ACM, 26, 1022–1036.Saracevic, T. ( 1980). Training and education of information scientists

in Latin America. UNESCO Journal oj’lrrjiwma!ion Science. Librar-ianship und.4 rchiw’.s.4dmini.r{ration, 2, 170–179.

Shannon. C. E. ( 1948). A mathematical theory of communication.Bell .$vswm TechrriculJournal, 27, 379-423,623-656.

Simon. H. A, ( 1955). On a class skew distribution functions. Biome-lrika, 42.425-440.

Van Rijsbergen. C. J. ( 1979). Information reIrieva/. London: Butter-worths.

Vickery, B. C. ( 1948). Bradfords law of scattering. Journa/ qfDocu-mmrla~inn. 4, 198–203.

Wilson, T. D. ( 1981). On user studies and information needs. .hntrna/of Documerrtution, 37, 3– ]5.

86 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—January 1997

References

Anderson. R. C.. Narin. F.. & McAllister. P. ( 1978). Publication rat-ings versus peer r~tings of universities. Jol(rnal (d [hc .lnu,rit,an S{~-c/(,/l for f@(lrmflr/( v7.S1’WCC,.?9,9 I-103,

Aruruschalam. S.. & Markanday, S, ( 1981 ). .Sciencein the middle-levelcountries: .4 hlhliomelric analysis of scientific journals of Australia,Canada. India and Israel. J{~l~rttt~/~)f/n/,w~ttu[i{In.Wlentc, 3, 13-26,

Baird. L. M.. & Oppcnheim, C. ( 1994). Do citations matter? Jfwrmd()/ Inf,)rm(lfl,m S(rc,nt(>,20, 2-15.

Bensnmn. S. J. ( I(M2). Bibliomctric laws and Iihrdry usage as a socialphenomenon. l.[hr~~rj R{,\c[~rdl.4, 279-312.

Brooks. T. ( 1986). Evidence of complex titer motivations. Journu/ @(hc. 1mcri(un .Swi(,[I /(w fn(cwmu{ion S(icrl<z,,37, 34-36.

C~rpcnter, R. 1.. ( 1988). Translation patterns and informationlrans~er. l.ihrwrl @tdrlrd\, 5#, 367-376.

Cole. S., & COIL,J. R. ( 1967). Scientific output and recognition: Astud} In the operallon of the reward system in science, Amcricun.S(Ic(I)h~,V[w/R(,r/(,w 3?, 377-390.

(’r~ne. D. ( I972 ), ln\i\//>/<,c<~//c>,qt,\:D1//i{.\t{ul(){”krr{~bvlcd,,l,in wl(,nrif[<[~j~~?))?i[nl(lt,jChictigo: The ~lnlversit> of Chicago Press.

Cronin, B. ( 19XI ), ‘Transatlantic citation patterns in educational psy-chology Sm,i[j/ S[ltwtv In/~JrJn~{/ltvr.V~fdic\, .?4,48–5 1.

Cronin. B. ( 1984). I’hc {itu!i(m Imxt,.vv 7711>r<>leund $i,yni~lcuncc,>1<’t![i!tf)nIt?.M’wnf(/Icc’(>f??tnt(rtlc’(l{lc?t7.London: Taylor Graham.

Deutsch. K. W’.( 1956). Shifts in Ihe balance of communication flows:A problem ot’measurcrncn( in international relations, Pfdr/ic’Opin-Ifw Qllt{rl[,r/1 20, I43- I60.

Dieks. D.. & Chang, }{.( 1976), Differences in impact ofscientificpcrb-Iicatmrs: Some indlccs dmivcd Irom a citation analysis. So(io/ S/t{d-l<,\<)/.Y(’rlvll’cri. 247–267.

Earlc. P.. & Vichery. B. ( 1969). Social science literature use in the UKas indicated by citations. ./{nmul/ {~/’Df~{’lf~~?{,/~lt~[i~~rt,25, 123-134.

Fllen, S, R. ( 1979). Sur\c> of foreign language problems facing theresearch worhms. //ItOr/Ond/ng”R(,vltvi, ‘. 3 I–4 1,

}’ostcr. D. 1.,( 1968). Magannes in the Iihrar} school. J~)IIvrtd(1 EdtI-<ulf<mlfwl.thrwmtt.~hip. 9, 144– I48.

C;articld, E. ( 1979). ( ‘f[a[j,w I~Idr\in,q-1/ \ /he~rj, u/7Jc@imfim~ inj(itwtc,, (cdmrd{~,~l,<i~ldhwwnirl[,.j. Ncw York: Wiley.

(;artield. E. ( 19X4). I.atln American research, In E. Gartield ( Ed.). E.t-.MJI\~)/{{~)//~/{v~II~///(m\t/~w(I.\I(pp. 138-15 I ). Vol. 7. Philadelphia:1S1Press.

Gartictd. E., & Welljams-Dorof. A. ( 1990). Language use in interna-t!onid research: A ci(titlorr analysis, .4.tP.S.Y.lnnua/. 5 I/, 10-24.

Gordon. M. ( Iq79 }. Deiicicvrcics of scientific information access andoutput in less de\elopcd countries. Jfn{r/~t{/1}/[h<,..lmen<un .Y{x/c/.r[(wIn/cmnuli<vf .S(ltw({,, 30, 340-342.

Gottfrcdson, S. D., & Ciarwc>.W. D. ( 1980), Review of ‘Citation in-dcking’ by Eugene C,arfreld. Llchmwwf~/[Jrrd.$f)c~cdS(”icncc.)l.lhrur-run, 1, 289-294.

Hagstrom. W. O. ( 197I ). Inputs. outputs. and the prestige of universityscwnce departments, .Y(~[i~J{j,q~(fl~dt~tu[~rm.44, 375-397,

Herman, I. L. ( 199I ). Rcceptivit> to foreign Iitcraturc: A comparison

of UK and US citing behavior in librarianship and information sci-ence. Lihrur~ and Irrlimnu!l(m Scicncc Rc>.rwmhc.s,13, 37-47.

Hocrten, P. A. ( 1991 ). Frequency and functional use of cited docu-ments in information science. Jfmrnu/ ol’lhc American .%xicl~ /ivIn/imntilifwl Science, 4.?, 397-404.

LaBorie. T.. & Halp-srin. M. ( 1976). Citation patterns in library sciencedissertation. .hmrmd o/’h2/mufion (,tr I./hruriunshfp, /6, 27 I-283.

Lancaster. F. W.. Lee. S. K., & Diluvio, C. ( 1990). Does place of puFs-Iication influence citation behavior? Sticn{f)melric’}, /9, 239-244.

Large, J. A. ( 1983). The //trcign-/urr~uti#c harrwr London: AndreDcutsch.

Lawmri, S. ( i977). The cwofessional literature used by American andFrench agronomists and the implications for agronomic education,Jmmruf <)14~r<m,)mitKducu(i[m 6, 41-46.

,awani, S.. & Bayer. A. ( t983 ). Validity of citation criteria for assess-ing the influence of scientific publications: New evidence with peerassessment. Journu/ ~)/Ihc.4 mcri(un .’l{~liet],IiwInlormu{iorr .Ycwntc,34, 59-66,

eydesdorff. L. ( 1987). Towards a theory of citation? Scitwlonre[rrc.!,12, 305-309,

Line, M. B. ( 1979). The influence of the type of sources used on theresults of citation analyses. Jtjurrrcdfl Dowmw~/u/ion, 3.!, 265-284,

Liu, M. ( t993). The complexities of citation practice: A review ofcita-tion studies. J(nmw/ (J I}fJ(li/?2c,tl/u(l~ln,49, 370-408.

MacRoberts. M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. ( 1989). Problems of citationanalysis A critical review, J{n(rn<df~/(hc .lnreri~zm Siwwlj, /or /n/iv-)nuli(m .Sflcn[f,, 40, 34?-349.

Meadows, A. J. ( 1974). C‘~)tn??t[~ni[u~{f~ttJn .Mrcncc London: Butter-worths.

Menou, M, J. ( 1983). Cultural barriers to the international transfer ofinformat ion. /n/imnu/l{m Promwing & .J~anu,qmrcnf, 19, 12t-129.

Oppenheim. C. ( 1995). The correlation between citation counts andthe t992 research assessment exercise ratings for British library andinformation science university departments. Journal ~l”D~~{wmm{u-/i(vl, 5/, IX-27.

Oppenheim. C.. & Renn. S. P. ( 1978). Highly cited old papers andreasons why they cent inue to be cited. Jotirnul oft)w .4mcrwun .Y<~i-el.1’/iw /n/(mnu[ ion Scicntc .?9,225-231.

Pool. I. ( 1990). Technok),qw! t~i!hw{l hfnwrdurlcs:On lc/e<t)mnrunwu-ri(m! ~nu ghJru/ U,VC.Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Reguant. S., & Casadell~, J. ( 1994). English as lingua franca in geolog-ical scientific publications. An bibliometric analysis. .$~”ft’nlf~m[}lrlt’.$,.?9,335-351,

Sandison. A. ( 1989). Thinking about citation analysis. Journu/,1 D,x-JImcmuIf(m, 4S, 59-64.

Small. H. ( 1982). Citation context analysis. In B. Derwn & M. J. Voigt( Eds. ), Pr,~,qrc\.\in t~,t~?tnt(t~~[afl{,nwwn(cj ( pp. 287-310 ). Vol. 3.Nonvood. NJ: Abtex.

Soper, M. E. ( 1976). Characteristics and use of Wrsonal collections,LihrurJ QmMcd.1, 46, 397-4 i 5.

Wood, N. D. ( 1967). The foreign-language problem facing scientistsand technologists in the United Kingdom—Report of a recent sur-vey. J{Jl~rna/~J/~f~(’~l~tt(~tl(u(i~~rl,.?3, I I7-130.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—Janua~ 1997 87