No abstract

The purpose of this paper is to update the review of Bornmann and Daniel (2008) presenting a narrative review of studies on citations in scientific documents. The current review covers 41 studies published between 2006 and 2018. Bornmann and Daniel (2008) focused on earlier years. The current review describes the (new) studies on citation content and context analyses as well as the studies that explore the citation motivation of scholars through surveys or interviews. One focus in this paper is on the technical developments in the last decade, such as the richer meta-data available and machine-readable formats of scientific papers. These developments have resulted in citation context analyses of large datasets in comprehensive studies (which was not possible previously). Many studies in recent years have used computational and machine learning techniques to determine citation functions and polarities, some of which have attempted to overcome the methodological weaknesses of previous studies. The automated recognition of citation functions seems to have the potential to greatly enhance citation indices and information retrieval capabilities. Our review of the empirical studies demonstrates that a paper may be cited for very different scientific and non-scientific reasons. This result accords with the finding by Bornmann and Daniel (2008). The current review also shows that to better understand the relationship between citing and cited documents, a variety of features should be analyzed, primarily the citation context, the semantics and linguistic patterns in citations, citation locations within the citing document, and citation polarity (negative, neutral, positive).

This study provides a conceptual overview of the literature dealing with the process of citing documents (focusing on the literature from the recent decade). It presents theories, which have been proposed for explaining the citation process, and studies having empirically analyzed this process. The overview is referred to as conceptual, because it is structured based on core elements in the citation process: the context of the cited document, processes from selection to citation of documents, and the context of the citing document. The core elements are presented in a schematic representation. The overview can be used to find answers on basic questions about the practice of citing documents. Besides understanding of the process of citing, it delivers basic information for the proper application of citations in research evaluation.

Can alternative metrics (altmetrics) data be used to measure societal impact? We wrote this literature overview of empirical studies in order to find an answer to this question. The overview includes two parts. The first part, "societal impact measurements", explains possible methods and problems in measuring the societal impact of research, case studies for societal impact measurement, societal impact considerations at funding organizations, and the societal problems that should be solved by science. The second part of the review, "altmetrics", addresses a major question in research evaluation, which is whether altmetrics are proper indicators for measuring the societal impact of research. In the second part we explain the data sources used for altmetrics studies and the importance of field-normalized indicators for impact measurements. This review indicates that it should be relevant for impact measurements to be oriented towards pressing societal problems. Case studies in which societal impact of certain pieces of research is explained seem to provide a legitimate method for measuring societal impact. In the use of altmetrics, field-specific differences should be considered by applying field normalization (in cross-field comparisons). Altmetrics data such as social media counts might mainly reflect the public interest and discussion of scholarly works rather than their societal impact. Altmetrics (Twitter data) might be especially fruitfully employed for research evaluation purposes, if they are used in the context of network approaches. Conclusions based on altmetrics data in research evaluation should be drawn with caution.

Several authors have proposed that a large number of unusual combinations of cited references in a paper point to its high creative potential (or novelty). However, it is still not clear whether the number of unusual combinations can really measure the creative potential of papers. The current study addresses this question on the basis of several case studies from the field of scientometrics. We identified some landmark papers in this field. Study subjects were the corresponding authors of these papers. We asked them where the ideas for the papers came from and which role the cited publications played. The results revealed that the creative ideas might not necessarily have been inspired by past publications. The literature seems to be important for the contextualization of the idea in the field of scientometrics. Instead, we found that creative ideas are the result of finding solutions to practical problems, result from discussions with colleagues, and profit from interdisciplinary exchange. The roots of the studied landmark papers are discussed in detail.

Objectives: This study aimed to acquire knowledge about the factors affecting smartphone adoption for accessing information in medical settings in Iranian Hospitals. Methods: A qualitative and quantitative approach was used to conduct this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 medical residents and interns in 2013 to identify determinant factors for smartphone adoption. Afterwards, nine relationships were hypothesised. We developed a questionnaire to test these hypotheses and to evaluate the importance of each factor. Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the causal relations between model parameters and to accurately identify determinant factors. Results: Eight factors were identified in the qualitative phase of the study, including perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, training, internal environment, personal experience, social impacts, observability and job related characteristics. Among the studied factors, perceived usefulness, personal experience and job related characteristics were significantly associated with attitude to use a smartphone which accounted for 64% of the variance in attitude. Perceived usefulness had the strongest impact on attitude to use a smartphone. Conclusion: The factors that emerged from interviews were consistent with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and some previous studies. TAM is a reliable model for understanding the factors of smartphone acceptance in medical settings.Keywords: consumer health information; information management; information seeking behaviour; social media Key messages• Perceived usefulness, personal experience and job related characteristics were the main factors predicting attitude to use a smartphone for accessing information in medical settings.• The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) provides a good framework for understanding the factors behind the adoption of smartphones for accessing information in medical settings.• Librarians in medical settings and hospitals should provide health care professionals with highly used and licensed mobile medical resources.

Since the inception of gatekeeping research in the 1940s, most studies on gatekeeping have been human‐centric, treating and studying individuals as gatekeepers, who perform their gatekeeping role using a combination of the following mechanisms: forming communities, and/or broadcasting, discovering‐searching, collecting, organizing, or protecting information. However, the nature of communication channels and how information is produced by and shared with users has fundamentally changed in the last 80 years. One significant change is the growing use of technology‐enabled metadata like hashtags when sharing information on social media. Rarely any study investigates whether hashtags can perform gatekeeping of information and what it means for information gatekeeping. This paper fills in the gap by conducting a content analysis of 77 interdisciplinary studies on hashtags and gatekeeping to confirm how they can implement six gatekeeping mechanisms. This study shows that hashtags expand our understanding of the role of technology solutions in gatekeeping and advance research on hierarchical gatekeeping. The benefits of hashtags for gatekeeping suggest that they act as “information anchors” for online communities, thereby highlighting the utility of information gatekeepers for society.

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the attitudes of Iranian nurses towards clinical information systems in nursing practice. Background: Nurses are essential in the successful adoption and implementation of clinical information systems. Methods: A systematic search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science and Farsi databases, to retrieve relevant studies. The methodological quality of the studies is assessed via the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies. The random effect model was utilized to analyse the data due to the high heterogeneity in the included studies (n = 17). Results: Results indicate that clinical information systems impact on at least seven aspects of nursing practice, including documentation, patient safety, quality of treatment, communication, treatment management, nursing tasks and hospital resource management. Results also indicated that one aspect of using clinical information systems in nursing practice is satisfaction with the 'quality and design of clinical information systems', such as ease of use and learning, flexibility and software speed. Conclusion: Clinical information systems can contribute to different aspects of nursing practice. However, their design should improve significantly in order to help nurses perform their professional activities in an efficient and satisfactory manner. Implications for Nursing Policy: Before the full deployment of clinical information systems, their usability should be tested. In pilot testing, nurses should provide necessary feedback about how well the systems work and improvements needed to meet their professional goals.