方法对比

	Citation Context Analysis	Citation Analysis for Collection Development
领域	Library Information Science	Library Information Science
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	1975	2005
提出者	Michael J. Moravcsik & Poovanalingam Murugesan	Library collection-development literature; Jennifer E. Knievel & Charlene Kellsey (comparative humanities study)
类型	Content-analytic pipeline for classifying the function and sentiment of in-text citations	Bibliometric pipeline applying local citation patterns to collection-building decisions
开创性文献	Moravcsik, M. J., & Murugesan, P. (1975). Some Results on the Function and Quality of Citations. Social Studies of Science, 5(1), 86-92.	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.
别名	Citation Function Analysis, Citation Content Analysis, Citation Sentiment Analysis, Citation Classification	Local Citation Analysis, Citation-Based Collection Evaluation, Reference Citation Study, Citation Analysis for Acquisitions
相关	2	3
摘要	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.	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.