Research on citations has generally examined citations as part of a system of rewards or as a rhetorical tool for strengthening arguments. This study examines the role of citations both as reward and as rhetoric. The reward system was examined by tracing over time the citation patterns of 13 research articles by two groups of scientists in chaos theory. The rhetorical practices were examined by determining how these articles were cited, by reviewing 609 citations of the 13 research articles. The analysis revealed that scientists consistently used five rhetorical practices: (1) using citations in the introduction, (2) using authors' names in the citation, (3) using the citation in a statement that asserts a high level of certainty, (4) using citations to create a research space, and (5) combining the use of the authors' names with placement in the introduction. These features indicated the articles' centrality in scientific discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bazerman, Charles. “Intertextual Self-Fashioning: Gould and Lewontin's Representations of the Literature.”Understanding Scientific Prose. Ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993. 20-41.
2.
Bazerman, Charles. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.
3.
Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas N. Huckin. “You Are What You Cite: Novelty and Intertextuality in a Biologist's Experimental Article.”Professional Communication: The Social Perspective. Ed. Nancy Roundy Blyler and Charlotte Thralls. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993. 109-127.
4.
Blakeslee, Ann. M.“Spinning a Rhetorical Web: Citation and Argumentative Strategy in Multi-Disciplinary Contexts.”The Twelfth Annual Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition. University Park, PA. July 1993.
5.
Charney, Davida. “A Study in Rhetorical Reading.”Understanding Scientific Prose. Ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993. 203-231.
6.
Cohen, Jack, and Ian Stewart. The Collapse of Chaos. Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World. New York: Viking, 1994.
7.
Cozzens, Susan E.“What Do Citations Count? The Rhetoric-First Model.”Scientometrics15 (1989): 437-447.
8.
Dowdey, Diane. “Citation and Documentation across the Curriculum.”Constructing Rhetorical Education. Ed. Maria Secor and Davida Charney. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. 330-351.
9.
Edge, David. “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science.”History of Science17 (1979): 102-134.
10.
Fahnestock, Jeanne. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.”Written Communication3 (1986): 275-296.
11.
Garfield, Eugene. “The Articles Most Cited in Science from 1961 to 1982. Another 100 Citations Classics: The Watson-Crick Double Helix Has Its Turn.”Essays of an Information Scientist8 (1985): 187-196.
12.
Gilbert, G. Nigel. “Referencing as Persuasion.”Social Studies of Science7 (1977): 113-122.
13.
Gilbert, G. Nigel, and Michael Mulkay. Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
14.
Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin, 1987.
15.
Grebogi, Celso. Personal interview. 18 July 1995.
16.
Hamilton, D. P.“Research Papers: Who's Uncited Now.”Science4 Jan. 1991: 25-25.
17.
Kaufer, David, and Kathleen M. Carley. Communication at a Distance: The Influence of Print on Sociocultural Organization and Change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993.
18.
Keith, William, and Kenneth S. Zagacki. “Rhetoric and Paradox in Scientific Revolutions.”Southern Communication Journal57 (1992): 165-177.
19.
Kuhn, Thomas S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
20.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Fact. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.
21.
Law, John, and R. J. Williams. “Putting Facts Together: A Study of Scientific Persuasion.”Social Studies of Science12 (1982): 535-558.
22.
Lorenz, Edward N.The Essence of Chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1993.
23.
Lorenz, Edward N.“Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow.”Journal of Atmospheric Science20 (1963): 130-141.
24.
MacRoberts, Michael H., and Barbara R. MacRoberts. “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Study of Formal Level.”Social Studies of Science16 (1986): 151-172.
25.
McCain, Katherine, and Kathleen Turner. “Citation Context Analysis and Aging Patterns of Journal Articles in Molecular Genetics.”Scientometrics17 (1989): 127-163.
26.
Miller, Carolyn R.“Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science.”A Rhetoric of Doing. Ed. Steve Witte, Neil Nakadate, and Roger Cherry. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. 309-327.
27.
Miller, Carolyn R., and S. Michael Halloran. “Reading Darwin, Reading Nature; Or on the Ethos of Historical Science.”Understanding Scientific Prose. Ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993. 106-126.
28.
Myers, Greg. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
29.
Paul, Danette, and Davida Charney. “Introducing Chaos (Theory) into Science and Engineering.”Written Communication12 (1995): 397-438.
30.
Pendleton, David. Telephone interview. 10 Mar. 1993.
31.
Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.
32.
Small, H. G.“Cited Documents as Concept Symbol.”Social Studies Science8 (1978): 327-340.
33.
Stewart, Ian. Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos. Oxford, Eng.: Blackwell, 1989.
34.
Swales, John. Genre Analysis, English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
35.
Swales, John, and Hazem Najjar. “The Writing of Research Article Introductions.”Written Communication4 (1987): 175-192.
36.
Toulmin, Stephen E.“Does the Distinction between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?”Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 39-48.
37.
Winsor, Dorothy. “Constructing Scientific Knowledge in Gould and Lewontin's ‘The Spandrels of San Marco.’”Understanding Scientific Prose. Ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993. 203-231.
38.
Yorke, James A.Personal interview. 18 July 1995.
39.
Zuckerman, Harriet. “Citation Analysis and the Complex Problem of Intellectual Influence.”Scientometrics12 (1987): 329-338.
