Ageing or obsolescence describes the process of declining use of a particular publication over time and can affect the results of a citation analyses as the length of citation window can change rankings. Obsolescence may not only vary across fields but also across subfields or sub-disciplines. The aim of this study is to determine the sub-disciplinary differences of obsolescence on a larger scale allowing for differences over time as well. The study presents the results of an analysis of 82,759 references across 53 healthcare and health policy topics. The references in this study are extracted from systematic reviews published from 2012 to 2016. The analyses of obsolescence include median citation age and mean citation age. This study finds that the median citation age and the mean citation age differ considerably across groups. For the latter indicator, an analysis of the confidence intervals confirms these differences. Using the subfield categorisation from Cochrane review groups, we found larger differences across subfields than in the citing half-lives published by Journal Citation Reports. Obsolescence is important to consider when setting the length of the citation windows. This study emphasises the vast differences across health sciences subfields. The length of the citation period is thus highly important for the results of a bibliometric evaluation or study covering fields with very varying obsolescence rates.
MoedHFVan LeeuwenTNReedijkJ. A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. J Document1998; 54(4): 387–419.
2.
GarfieldE.Long-term vs. short-term journal impact: does it matter. Scientist1998; 12(3): 11–12.
3.
GarfieldE. Journal citation studies. 46. Physical-Chemistry and chemical physics journals. 1. Historical background and global-maps. Current Contents1986; 1: 3–10.
4.
GarfieldEMertonRK. Citation Indexing: its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979, pp. vii-xi.
5.
GarfieldE. Obliteration phenomenon in science and advantage of being obliterated. Current Contents1975; 1975: 396.
6.
HaunschildRBarthAFrenchB. A comprehensive analysis of the history of DFT based on the bibliometric method RPYS. J Cheminform2019; 11(1): 72.
7.
GorryPRagouetP (eds). Eponymy and delayed recognition: the case of Otto Warburg Nobel Prize. In: 17th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, ISSI 2019 – Proceedings, Vol. 2, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 2–5 September 2019.
8.
HoYSHartleyJ. Sleeping beauties in psychology. Scientometrics2017; 110(1): 301–305.
9.
TalDGordonA. Leonardo da Vinci: the archetype of sleeping beauty in science. Society2020; 57: 71–76.
10.
LineMBSandisonA. Progress in documentation: ‘Obsolescence’ and changes in the use of literature with time. J Document1974; 30(3): 283–350.
11.
LineMB. The ‘half-life’ of periodical literature: apparent and real obsolescence. J Document1970; 26: 46–54.
12.
LineMB. Changes in the use of literature with time – Obsolescence revisited. Library Trends1993; 41: 665–683.
13.
DiodatoVPGellatlyP. Dictionary of bibliometrics. New York: Routledge, 2013.
14.
NicholasDHuntingtonPDobrowolskiT, et al. Revisiting ‘obsolescence’ and journal article ‘decay’ through usage data: an analysis of digital journal use by year of publication. Inform Process Manag2005; 41(6): 1441–1461.
15.
HennekenEAKurtzMJ. Usage bibliometrics as a tool to measure research activity. In: GlanzelWMoedHFSchmochU, et al. (eds). Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. New York: Springer, 2019, pp. 819–834.
16.
AraoLHSantosMGuedesVLD. The half-life and obsolescence of the literature science area: a contribution to the understanding the chronology of citations in academic activity. Qual Quant Methods Libr2015: 603–610.
MullaKRDhanamjayaMTalawarVG. Citations in engineering doctoral dissertations: an obsolescence study. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Tech2013; 33(6): 451–456.
20.
AhmadiehDNalbandianSNoubaniK. A comparative citation analysis study of master’s theses at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. Collection Building2016; 35(4): 103–113.
21.
PrinceRMSerranoMCO. ATAC Journal: bibliometric behavior of her scientific production (2010-2015). Rev Publicando2017; 4(13): 68–96.
22.
Sotelo-CruzNAtrian-SalazarMLTrujillo-LopezS. Indicators of obsolescence of the medical literature in a Mexican pediatric journal. Gac Med Mex2016; 152(2): 202–207.
23.
Valdespino-AlbertiAITocaIáSosa-PalaciosOArencibia-JorgeR, et al. Scientific production in the Cuban journal of pediatrics during the period 2005-2016. Rev Cubana Pediatr2019; 91(2): 1–22.
24.
Gorbea-PortalSAtrián-SalazarML. Measurement of data obsolescence in public health journals of Mexico. Gac Med Mex2018; 154(3): 335–341.
25.
SongYMaFYangS. Comparative study on the obsolescence of humanities and social sciences in China: under the new situation of web. Scientometrics2015; 102(1): 365–388.
26.
TarangoJAscencio-BacaGRomo-GonzálezJR, et al. Information trends in Wikipedia’s featured article category: a perspective on obsolescence in virtual and open access contents. An Doc2017; 20(1): 2437.
27.
de Solla PriceDJ. Networks of scientific papers. Science1965: 510–515.
28.
GlänzelWMoedH. Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics2002; 53(2): 171–193.
29.
GlanzelWSchoepflinU. A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. J Inform Sci1995; 21(1): 37–53.
30.
YalcinHDaimTUDabicM, et al. Exploring technology and engineering management research landscape. In: 2019 IEEE technology & engineering management conference (TEMSCON), Atlanta, GA, 12–14 June 2019. New York: IEEE.
31.
Lopez-PintorENunezCCPSanz-ValeroJ. Bibliometric and thematic analysis of the scientific literature on community pharmacy services, in the MEDLINE bibliographic database. Pharm Care Esp2018; 20(6): 408–428.
32.
GuoSZhangG. Analyzing concept complexity, knowledge ageing and diffusion pattern of Mooc. Scientometrics2017; 112(1): 413–430.
33.
WaltonG. Learners’ demands and expectations for space in a university library: outcomes from a survey at Loughborough University. New Rev Acad Librariansh2006; 12(2): 133.
34.
HeiseyTM. Paradigm agreement and literature obsolescence: a comparative study in the literature of the dead sea scrolls. J Document1988; 44(4): 285–301.
35.
SaperCB. What’s in a citation impact factor? A journal by any other Measure. J Comp Neurol1999; 411(1): 1–2.
36.
HuangHAndrewsJTangJ. Citation characterization and impact normalization in bioinformatics journals. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech2012; 63(3): 490–497.
37.
AdamsJ. Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics2005; 63(3): 567–581.
38.
BaumgartnerSELeydesdorffL. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) of citations in scholarly literature: Dynamic qualities of ‘transient’ and ‘sticky knowledge claims’. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2014; 65(4): 797–811.
39.
WangJ. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics2013; 94(3): 851–872.
40.
LeydesdorffLBornmannL. The operationalization of ‘fields’ as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics: The cases of ‘library and information science’ and ‘science & technology studies’. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2016; 67(3): 707–714.
41.
WaltmanL. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J Informetr2016; 10(2): 365–391.
42.
LeydesdorffL. Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech2008; 59(2): 278–287.
43.
HigginsJThomasJChandlerJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2019, https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
44.
MetzendorfM-IFrandsenFeatherstone RM., et al. provide insights to PubMed coverage across all Cochrane Review Groups, but more in-depth analyses would further help inform database choices. J Clin Epidemiol2019; 116: 135–136.
45.
RunjicERombeyTPieperD, et al. Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status. J Clin Epidemiol2019; 116: 114–121.
46.
RifkinWJYangJHDeMitchell-RodriguezE, et al. Levels of evidence in plastic surgery research: a 10-year bibliometric analysis of 18,889 publications from 4 major journals. Aesthet Surg J2020; 40(2): 220–227.
47.
KeQ. The citation disadvantage of clinical research. J Informetr2020; 14(1): 100998.
48.
CallahamMWearsRLWeberE. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. J Am Med Assoc2002; 287(21): 2847–2850.
49.
KulkarniAVBusseJWShamsI. Characteristics associated with citation rate of the medical literature. PLoS ONE2007; 2(5): e403.
50.
PatsopoulosNAAnalatosAAIoannidisJP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA2005; 293(19): 2362–2366.
51.
WillisDLBahlerCDNeubergerMM, et al. Predictors of citations in the urological literature. BJU Int2011; 107(12): 1876–1880.
52.
BornmannLBowmanBFBauerJ, et al. 11 Bibliometric standards for evaluating research institutes in the natural sciences. In: CroninBSugimotoCR (eds) Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014, p. 201.
53.
BornmannLWohlrabeK. Normalisation of citation impact in economics. Scientometrics2019; 120(2): 841–884.
54.
HicksDWoutersPWaltmanL, et al. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature2015; 520: 429–431.
55.
LeydesdorffLWoutersPBornmannL. Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators – a state-of-the-art report. Scientometrics2016; 109(3): 2129–2150.
56.
WangXZhangZ. Improving the reliability of short-term citation impact indicators by taking into account the correlation between short-and long-term citation impact. J Informetr2020; 14(2): 101019.
57.
GlänzelWThijsBSchubertA, et al. Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics2009; 78(1): 165–188.
58.
AbramoGCiceroTD’AngeloCA. Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length. J Informetr2011; 5(4): 659–667.
59.
AbramoGD’AngeloCAFeliciG. Predicting publication long-term impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor. J Informetr2019; 13(1): 32–49.
60.
AksnesDWLangfeldtLWoutersP. Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: an overview of basic concepts and theories. Sage Open2019; 9(1): 2158244019829575.
