English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The normative theory of citing holds that scientists “reward” colleagues whose work they use by citing that work, that is, scientists give credit where credit is due [l-3]. It follows that “the research that scientists cite in their own papers represents a roughly valid indicator of influence on their work” [4, p. 2201. Citations therefore can be used to measure or indicate the quality or impact of work, to establish cognitive pedigrees, and to map scientific networks and specialities [5, 61. In a previous article, we tested one prediction of the normative theory [7]. We read articles and noted whether or not influences were cited. We found that only thirty percent were. The normative theory also predicts that authors should not cite preferentially, that is, while it is clear that authors do not cite all of their influences, it is possible that in the aggregate they cite proportional to use. Consequently, the data would give a broadly correct picture of use and could still provide a measure of quality or impact.

Another test of the normative theory of citing