手法を比較

	Webometric Link Analysis	Citation Context Analysis
分野	Library Information Science	Library Information Science
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	1998	1975
提唱者	Peter Ingwersen (web impact factor); Mike Thelwall (link analysis methodology)	Michael J. Moravcsik & Poovanalingam Murugesan
種類	Network/quantitative pipeline measuring web visibility and impact through hyperlinks	Content-analytic pipeline for classifying the function and sentiment of in-text citations
原典	Ingwersen, P. (1998). The calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236-243.	Moravcsik, M. J., & Murugesan, P. (1975). Some Results on the Function and Quality of Citations. Social Studies of Science, 5(1), 86-92.
別名	Web Impact Factor Analysis, Hyperlink Analysis, Link Impact Analysis, Webometrics	Citation Function Analysis, Citation Content Analysis, Citation Sentiment Analysis, Citation Classification
関連	2	2
概要	Webometric link analysis treats hyperlinks the way bibliometrics treats citations: as traces of influence and visibility that can be counted and analyzed. The central indicator, Peter Ingwersen's 1998 Web Impact Factor, divides the number of links pointing to a web unit, a site, domain, or institution, by its number of pages, producing a link-density measure analogous to a journal impact factor. Mike Thelwall's Link Analysis: An Information Science Approach (2004) developed the broader methodology, showing how hyperlink counts and link networks can serve as evidence about online phenomena while warning carefully about the reliability of the underlying data. Distinct from generic scientometric citation mapping, webometric link analysis measures impact on the web itself, the visibility of universities, libraries, journals, and organizations as expressed through who links to them.	Citation context analysis looks past the bare count of citations to ask why and how a work is cited, by reading the text surrounding each in-text reference and classifying its function, sentiment, and content. Where ordinary citation counting treats every reference as an equal vote, this method recognizes that citations differ: some are central to a paper's argument and others merely perfunctory, some confirm a cited finding and others dispute it, some use a method and others only mention a concept. Moravcsik and Murugesan's 1975 study of theoretical physics introduced the now-classic functional distinctions (conceptual versus operational, organic versus perfunctory, evolutionary versus juxtapositional, confirmative versus negational) and found that a large share of citations were perfunctory, casting doubt on citation counts as pure quality measures. Tahamtan and Bornmann's review situates this work within the broader question of what citation counts actually measure.