Yöntem Karşılaştırma

	Webometric Link Analysis	Citation Analysis for Collection Development	Citation Context Analysis
Alan	Library Information Science	Library Information Science	Library Information Science
Aile	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Köken yılı	1998	2005	1975
Köken	Peter Ingwersen (web impact factor); Mike Thelwall (link analysis methodology)	Library collection-development literature; Jennifer E. Knievel & Charlene Kellsey (comparative humanities study)	Michael J. Moravcsik & Poovanalingam Murugesan
Tür	Network/quantitative pipeline measuring web visibility and impact through hyperlinks	Bibliometric pipeline applying local citation patterns to collection-building decisions	Content-analytic pipeline for classifying the function and sentiment of in-text citations
Seminal kaynak	Ingwersen, P. (1998). The calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236-243.	Knievel, J. E., & Kellsey, C. (2005). Citation Analysis for Collection Development: A Comparative Study of Eight Humanities Fields. The Library Quarterly, 75(2), 142-168.	Moravcsik, M. J., & Murugesan, P. (1975). Some Results on the Function and Quality of Citations. Social Studies of Science, 5(1), 86-92.
Diğer adlar	Web Impact Factor Analysis, Hyperlink Analysis, Link Impact Analysis, Webometrics	Local Citation Analysis, Citation-Based Collection Evaluation, Reference Citation Study, Citation Analysis for Acquisitions	Citation Function Analysis, Citation Content Analysis, Citation Sentiment Analysis, Citation Classification
İlişkili	2	3	2
Özet	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 analysis for collection development studies what a library's own community actually cites, in their theses, dissertations, and publications, and uses those patterns to guide what the library should buy, keep, and cancel. Rather than mapping the global structure of a field, it asks a local, practical question: which formats, languages, ages, and specific titles do our researchers rely on? By tabulating the references in locally produced scholarship, the method reveals, for example, whether a discipline depends on monographs or journals, how quickly its literature ages, and which journals or books appear most often, evidence that can be matched against holdings to find gaps and guide budgets. Knievel and Kellsey's comparative study of eight humanities fields showed how sharply these citation patterns vary by discipline, underscoring why collection decisions should rest on field-specific local evidence.	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.