The New York Times as a Resource for Mode 2
Abstract
The New York Times (NYT) receives more citations from academic journals than the American Sociological Review, Research Policy, or the Harvard Law Review. This article explores the reasons why scholars cite the NYT so much. Reasons include studying the newspaper itself or New York City, establishing public interest in a topic by referencing press coverage, introducing specificity, and treating the NYT very much like an academic journal. The phenomenon seems to reflect a mode 2 type of scholarship produced in the context of application, organizationally diverse, socially accountable, and aiming to be socially useful as well as high quality as assessed by peers.
Introduction
Recognizing that social knowledge has become ubiquitous in our “knowledge society” but also that science studies has relatively little insight to offer about social knowledge,1Camic, Gross, and Lamont (2011) argue for the importance of understanding knowledge creation beyond science and medicine. Along with the pervasive reach of social knowledge, in the passage above, Camic et al. acknowledge different genres of social knowledge, in particular journalism and scholarship. The book explores the nature of social knowledge making that is practiced in settings beyond academia and in interaction between genres, and which is in relatively porous social locations, as opposed to a more traditional picture of a social thinker’s academic discipline overlaid with a few macrosocial factors (Camic, Gross, and Lamont 2011, 27). In the picture that emerges, knowledge cannot be derived from a list of factors nor is scholarship delicate and always in danger of being overwhelmed when brought into contact with other institutions. Rather, nothing is self-contained, and many of the studies in the book explore how knowledge emerges in settings where academic approaches intertwine with other genres contributing to what Schudson (2010) calls the emerging ecology of public knowledge. Here we further explore this theme, examining how scholarship interacts with another genre of social knowledge making—newspaper journalism. Since we found that scholarship interacts less with newspapers in general than with the New York Times (NYT) in particular (see Figure 1 below), we dissect the relationship between scholarship and the NYT. We approach this relationship through texts by gathering all references to the NYT from academic literature and inspecting citation contexts to explore how scholars are using the NYT in constructing their arguments. In this article, we explore the intermingling of two porous genres of social knowledge making: scholarship and newspaper journalism, in particular the NYT.A near cipher two centuries ago, social knowledge has subsequently become a ubiquitous feature of the societal landscape, buffeting those in our own time with … literally hundreds of thousands of books, articles, and lectures that are produced annually both by academic social scientists and by journalists, jurists, pundits, personal advisers, and innumerable other creators and distributors of varieties of human knowledge that fall beyond the bounds of the natural sciences.
Trends in and Extent of NYT Citing
Six thousand academic articles cited material from the NYT in 2010. This is approximately 1 percent of US articles published in 2010 and indexed in the Web of Science. Because the number of articles with US authors that reference the NYT has more than tripled over the past thirty years, while the number of articles indexed in the Web of Science doubled, the share of articles that reference the NYT has grown. Figure 2 compares the growth in a number of US articles that reference the NYT with growth in all US articles. The share of US articles referencing the NYT grew from 0.77 percent to 1.25 percent between 1980 and 2010.
Notable in Figure 2 is the accelerated growth in NYT referencing starting in 2006. There are some grounds to believe that the acceleration might have been due to increased availability. In 1996, the NYT launched its website; this appeared to make no difference to the usage of NYT among scholars. Google News was launched in 2002, three years prior to the sharp uptick in NYT referencing in published articles. In 2005, Dialog obtained the archive back to 1980 and Factiva back to 1996 (before this they were limited to ninety days of material for US subscribers). Finally, in 2008, NYT content back to 1851 became available on the website. The greater availability of NYT material through Google News, Dialog, and Factiva is most plausibly credited with launching the faster growth in NYT referencing. Easier access led to greater use of the NYT by academics. The field of law provides a counterexample that strengthens this case. From 1983, Nexis had an exclusive agreement with the NYT to host the archive of NYT content back to 19802 giving legal scholars access; their NYT referencing does not accelerate after 2006.
References to the NYT are found in articles across science, technology, social sciences, and humanities.3Figure 3 maps the articles published in 2010 that reference the NYT taking the science overlay map developed by Rafols, Porter, and Leydesdorff (2010) as the base framework upon which NYT-citing articles are highlighted. We see that NYT-citing articles are sprinkled across the map,4 although the social sciences are most active in referencing the NYT and so are plotted using the largest circles. Table 1 compares the distribution of articles referencing the NYT across fields in 2010 with the 2009 distribution of US articles and highlights the heavy concentration of NYT-citing articles in social sciences and law. In three fields, more than 10 percent of articles referenced an NYT article in 2010: law (36 percent of articles citing the NYT), international relations (18 percent), and political science (11 percent).5
| Field | Percentage of Articles | Percentage of NYT Referencing Articles |
|---|---|---|
| Social sciences | 15 | 64 |
| Law | 13 | 51 |
| Medical sciences | 51 | 13 |
| Science and engineering | 33 | 9 |
| All fields | 100 | 100 |
Note. NYT = New York Times.
This pattern of referencing highlights genre differences between the NYT and scholarly journals. One reason for the extensive citation is that the NYT publishes about 75,000 articles a year, orders of magnitude more than a scholarly journal. The NYT covers “all the news that’s fit to print”; scholarly journals specialize in narrow topics. The NYT’s comprehensive topic coverage underpins the widespread citation pattern.
The extensive academic referencing of the NYT only partly reflects general referencing of the press in scholarly articles. The NYT is referenced in academic articles more than three times as often as its nearest rival, the Washington Post, and more than seven times as much as the Los Angeles Times—Figure 1.
The prestige and influence of the NYT might explain the preference for NYT over other newspapers in scholarly referencing. This prestige is evident across a number of measures: circulation, Pulitzer prizes, use by opinion leaders, and words in the Wikipedia entry. For each measure, Table 2 names the nearest competitor (or leader) and lists the value of the metric for both the NYT and the competitor. In Table 2, we see that the NYT dominates news coverage for US elites, shown by its leading position in the Erdos and Morgan (2011) annual survey of opinion leaders assessing the reach of media brands. The NYT reaches 58 percent of opinion leaders6 and the second leading newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, reaches 49 percent. The NYT website is visited monthly by 33 percent of opinion leaders, almost equal to the second place website, Cable News Network (CNN) at 28 percent. The NYT leads on each prestige metric in Table 2 except weekday circulation.
| Influence Metric | New York Times (NYT) | Nearest Competitor | Competitor | Ratio NYT/Nearest Competitor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scholarly references in 2010 | 14,165 | Washington Post | 3,898 | 3.6 |
| Words in Wikipedia entry | 8,958 | Wall Street Journal | 5,377 | 1.7 |
| Sunday Circulation | 1,352,358 | Los Angeles Times | 901,119 | 1.5 |
| Opinion leader website visits | 32.6 | Washington Post | 21.4 | 1.4 |
| Pulitzer Prizes | 26 | Washington Post | 19 | 1.4 |
| Opinion leader readership | 58.4 | Wall Street Journal | 49.3 | 1.1 |
| Weekday Circulation | 876,638 | Wall Street Journal | 2,061,142 | 0.4 |
| Metric | Source |
|---|---|
| Wikipedia | Retrieved webpage of Wikipedia about each newspaper, and counted total number of words, retrieved date: April 01, 2011 |
| Sunday and weekday circulation | Average of a six month span from April to September 2010, source: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/10/25/circulation_numbers_for_the_25_largest_newspapers/ |
| Pulitzer Prizes | Counted number of Pulitzer Prize for Journalism in each year from 2001 to 2010, prizes for Letters, Drama, and Music are not counted, source: http://www.pulitzer.org |
| Opinion leader media usage | Erdos and Morgan (2011) |
The curious aspect of influence is that the NYT is so much more dominant in scholarly references than it is in the other metrics. The NYT/competitor ratio in dimensions such as circulation, opinion leader use, and Pulitzer prizes ranges from 0.4 to 1.5. The NYT entry in Wikipedia is 1.7 times as long as that of the Wall Street Journal. Yet, academic articles reference the NYT 3.6 times as much as they reference the nearest competitor, the Washington Post. The NYT ’s advantage in prestige may be magnified in academic referencing because, unlike the other metrics, preferential attachment operates in referencing. Academics prefer to reference more prestigious authors and works (Camic 1992; Evans 2005; Hargens 2004). Because referencing positions one’s text in relation to predecessors, authors hope that well-respected predecessors provide better positioning for the current work. The preference for prestigious predecessors is a form of preferential attachment responsible for the Matthew effect. Among academics, the scholarly literature is more respected than any other genre, including newspapers. Therefore, we would not expect newspapers to be referenced extensively in the scholarly literature because we would predict that authors might worry that references to newspapers would reflect badly on their texts. So if a newspaper is referenced at all, we would expect academics to preferentially reference the most prestigious newspaper magnifying underlying differences in esteem.
Why Does the Academic Literature Reference the NYT?
In order to better understand the phenomenon of scholarly referencing of NYT articles, citation contexts in a sample of NYT referencing articles published in 2010 were examined. A total of 109 science and engineering articles and 210 social science articles citing the NYT were examined. These articles comprised all available hard science articles and a randomly selected 6 percent of accessible social science articles. For each article, the context surrounding the NYT reference or references was collected. The referencing contexts were compared and grouped in a process of midrange theory building from case studies (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). Iteration refined and stabilized the category scheme that forms the basis for the discussion. The categories represent idealizations of actual referencing behavior. A single reference may partake of more than one purpose. Therefore, it was not possible to produce a precise frequency count of reference types. As Eisenhardt and Graebner point out, for a phenomenon-driven research question lacking plausible theory, such as this one, this type of theory building exercise is more suited to answering the “why” question than the “how often” or “how many” questions (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007, 26–27).
The NYT or New York City Are Studied
The NYT is a notable institution in the United States and as such forms the subject of academic research, as in this article. Web of Science indexes approximately ten articles a year with “New York Times” in their titles. Academic articles are written about the newspaper most often in the field of mass communications but almost as frequently in government law, arts, and humanities, and information science. Also, the NYT corpus is used as a data source, for example in:
In this article, NYT articles are used to represent press coverage of pregnant drug-using women and the race of the women discussed in the articles is analyzed. The NYT provides raw data in fields as diverse as psychology, economics, computing, and sociology.The Race and Class Privilege of Motherhood: The New York Times Presentations of Pregnant Drug-Using Women. (Springer, K. W. 2010 Sociological Forum)
Related to studying the NYT is the study of New York City. The city and its region play such a large role in the nation’s cultural and economic life that the city is often the subject of research referencing the NYT as source material. About fifty NYT-citing articles in 2010 contained “New York” but not “New York Times” in their titles. Examples are found in urban studies, history, cultural studies, and biological and environmental sciences.
Studies of the NYT and New York City are not unexpected. Therefore, we learn little of interest from these examples, except perhaps how broadly the studies are spread across fields. On the other hand, these examples account for only a small amount of NYT referencing, so the question of why scholars reference the NYT so heavily remains open.
A Topic’s Importance Is Established Using Evidence of Press Coverage
The next reason for NYT referencing highlights differences between journalism and scholarship as genres. The press does not simply report; by reporting they also amplify. Schudson has argued that the press confer upon their subject matter public legitimacy, certifying importance (Schudson, 2003, 29). This contrasts with scholarship which serves to certify knowledge as reliable and, in relation to social knowledge, construct causal interpretations. Therefore, if an academic wants to demonstrate public concern for a topic to establish its importance, no amount of referencing to scholarly studies will make that point. However, press coverage does count as evidence of public concern. For example:
NYT science coverage delights mathematicians and physicists when it touches on their enthusiasms:California schools became notorious for their overcrowding, poor physical conditions, and heavy reliance on temporary, modular classrooms (see, e.g., [NYT ref]). (Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein 2010)Some of America’s bestselling newspapers and magazines, including the NYT, Time, Life, Newsweek, and Cosmopolitan tirelessly reported on Provoo’s public trials and his fate developed into a legal odyssey that influenced future interpretations of American treason law [refs]. (Kushner 2010)
NYT science coverage makes possible a kind of self-citation when a group cites an NYT article that featured its work. Two examples of this were found in 2010: an article entitled “Dynamics on the Way to Forming Glass: Bubbles in Space-Time” referenced NYT coverage of the group’s research in a piece entitled “Anything But Clear,” and an article entitled “Encapsulation of Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducers Using Viscoelastic Polymer” referenced NYT coverage of the group’s research in a piece entitled “An ultrasound that navigates every nook and cranny.”A few months ago, a New York Times article [NYT ref] reported that the LHC dipoles unexpectedly behaved below specifications during first tests in 2008. This shows the interest that this pretty technical topic has risen not only in the scientific community, but well beyond, up to the headlines of newspapers. (Lorin et al. 2010)
Referencing the NYT, along with other press, to establish the public importance of a topic is a strategy used by both scientists and social scientists, though scientific authors seem to use it twice as often. Overall, about 10 percent of references are accounted for by this motivation. This type of referencing might be classified as genre typical. There is a consensus that newspaper coverage signifies public interest and when public interest enters an academic argument, newspapers are an appropriate reference. The NYT is a newspaper with comprehensive news coverage and so may well be included in a list of newspapers.
Specificity Is Introduced
Academic writing is characterized by the use of generalities and abstractions. Nominalization creates “higher and higher order abstractions which provide conceptual objects that populate the intellectual landscape of scientific specialities. The nominal abstractions are increasingly removed from concrete experience … ” (Bazerman 1998, 19, summarizing Halliday). Social sciences construe experience in abstract, hypothetical, idealized, and generic terms upon which technical taxonomy is built (Wignell 1998; MacDonald 1994). This serves as the scaffolding on which knowledge of processes, relationships, and causes is constructed. In contrast, journalism is storytelling about the who, what, where, when, and why of events (Manoff and Schudson 1986). Newspapers report events and the people involved at a particular time and place. Both genres can leverage the other. When journalists have recourse to causal explanation, they can bring in academics as experts.7 When social science moves from abstractions to specifics, one approach is to reference the NYT. Often an NYT reference marks the appearance of something concrete among the abstractions.
Specificity characterizes the words spoken by a person. In addition to specificity, spoken words introduce color into the text. If spoken by a person shaping the course of events, quotes can also advance an argument. Journalists often quote specific people, and NYT journalists have access to famous people. Academics, though they quote each other’s written text, rarely reproduce words spoken by another. When they do, one method is to pull a quote from the NYT. For example:
Another type of specificity is reference to events: the bridge collapse in Minnesota, ricin attacks in the subway, and Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. We know about these events through the news, and the news has made them common knowledge. Because one of the functions of news is to create common knowledge (Schudson, 1978), and once something is common knowledge it no longer needs to be explicitly referenced (Latour and Woolgar 1979, 76; Garfield 1975), referencing of news is suppressed. Between unknown and common knowledge lies a zone of reported events whose obscurity prompts explicit source referencing when they are brought into an academic text. For example:In an attempt to encourage development of creative solutions to prevent the approaching crisis, the former Saudi Arabian oil minister warned that “The Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil” [NYT ref]. (Abramson, Shoseyov, and Shani 2010)French President Nicolas Sarkozy publicly mused, at the onset of the crisis, that “a certain idea of globalization is dying with the end of a financial capitalism,” yielding a seemingly unambiguous ideological conclusion: “Self-regulation, to fix all problems, is over. Laissez-faire is over” (quoted in [NYT ref]). (Peck, Theodore, and Brenner 2010)
The currency of these examples is representative. One aspect of the generality and abstraction with which academic knowledge is written is a kind of timeless quality (see Knorr-Cetina 2011). Academic social knowledge is slow knowledge; lengthy periods of research are followed by weeks and months of writing, there is often a lengthy gap between submission and publication, and there are often many years that pass between publication and recognition by the scholarly community. This leisurely pace contrasts with the daily deadlines journalists face in their time sensitive genre. When academics reference very recent events, events so recent that they have not been absorbed into the scholarly literature, the NYT can be used.As of June 9, BP has used over 1 million gallons of Corexit oil dispersants to solubilize oil and help prevent the development of a surface oil slick [NYT ref]. (Place et al. 2010)Claims of “infringing activity” could be used pretextually to block access to political critics—as in Russia, where the police asserted copyright enforcement when they raided an environmental group and confiscated computers containing allegedly pirated Microsoft software. [NYT ref] (Microsoft has subsequently granted a blanket license to such groups.) (Seltzer 2011)
Therefore, the age profiles of references to the NYT and to the scholarly literature differ. Authors’ NYT references are both newer and older than their references to journal articles. In articles that cite the NYT, the NYT accounts for 10 percent of all references to material published most recently, that is, current year, and 10 percent of references published in the 1800s. But NYT referencing accounts for only about 2 percent of references published between 1980 and 2003. Figure 4 plots the distribution of references over cited years for NYT references, and all references in all articles. The figure shows that relatively more references to the NYT are very recent (2006–2009) as compared to references to journal articles. In accord with the timeless quality of scholarly writing, the use of journal articles as references declines more gradually with the age of articles than does the use of NYT articles. Thus, among material published from 1970 to 2005, relatively more journal articles are cited than NYT articles. However, pre-1970, the situation reverses again so that relatively more NYT references are older than 1970 as compared to journal article references. The modal year of cited works is 2007 overall, but 2008 for NYT references and for all references in NYT-citing articles (2009–2010 citing articles).
Though aspiring to a timeless quality, ironically the scientific and social scientific literature does not have much use for work older than forty or fifty years. However, as a record of events, the NYT can be used as a primary source of historical information, and with the archive online that source is more accessible than history books. Thus, the NYT is used as a source of information on events in the late 1800s and early 1900s by nonhistorians. Art, literature, and history are the fields with a predilection for using pre-1950s sources, and among their old sources, the NYT is prominent. However, such referencing is found across fields.
In referencing events and quotations, the NYT is used as a primary source. This usage is broader than instances in which discrete events or quotes are discussed. For example:
Here the NYT is being used as a primary source, but the discussion is not quite about a specific event. The high rate of NYT referencing in international affairs likely reflects the value of the NYT as a primary source due to the depth of foreign affairs coverage, as well as the many decades of coverage in their archives. So, for example, the phrase “cold war” occurs relatively frequently in the titles of NYT-referencing articles (thirteen times in 2010), and articles in the journal Diplomatic History often contain NYT references. Similar usage is found in articles discussing the financial crisis. These various types of specificity account for 40–60 percent of NYT referencing.Fuel consumption cost is estimated to account for more than 60% of the vessels’ operating costs and therefore, ocean carriers have taken almost unprecedented immediate measures to slow ships to economic speeds of 20knts from 25knts, a practice called “slow steaming”. Moreover, the ocean carriers are stressing the increased importance of schedule integrity and the ensuing benefits to the environment [NYT & trade press refs], along with their devotion to slow steaming operating policies [trade press ref]. (Golias et al. 2010)
Reference Is Indistinguishable from an Academic Reference
A paragraph-level shift from the abstract to the concrete often marks an NYT reference, whether a quote is introduced, the implications of an event discussed, or some broader happening is interpreted; the NYT is used as a primary source. At times, however, the NYT is referenced and the language remains abstract and general; one would not guess an NYT article was being referenced from looking at the citation context.
When specificity is lacking, the NYT will often be coreferenced with scholarly journals.For example, an array of optimally aligned microrods with semicircular cross-sections may be mounted on a frame. Upon exposure to sunlight the frame would be propelled forwards, like a solar sail [NYT ref], and translated sideways, as a result of lift. (Swartzlander et al. 2010)This stigma manifests itself through narratives of indeterminacy, confusion, and deceit, wherein bisexual persons are cast as being unable to choose their identity or, worse, lying about their “true” identity. [NYT ref] (Bostwick et al. 2010)
The quintessential example of NYT journalist-written material being referenced exactly like an academic study concerns the work of Michael Barbaro and Tom Zeller, Jr., in breaking the anonymization of an AOL data file in 2006 (Barbaro and Zeller 2006). The impossibility of anonymization in large data sets is a topic of increasing concern in the computer science and law literatures. The Barbaro and Zeller article is a foundational contribution to that literature and is often cited giving authorial credit, as is common when citing academic work but not when citing NYT articles. The citation pattern to the article is not that of a journalistic piece—citation in the year or two after publication followed by swift oblivion—but that of a highly cited academic piece cited ten to fifteen times a year every year since publication.9This technology is now actively pursued for electric vehicle applications (HEV and EV). However, major challenges in implementing the LIB technology for vehicle applications are the safety and environmental concerns arising from the currently used expensive LiCoO2 cathode [NYT and 2 journal article refs]. (Saravanan et al. 2010)Several previous works have shed some understanding on the prevalence of Braess’s Paradox. On the empirical side, there has been a small amount of anecdotal evidence in the transportation science literature suggesting that Braess’s Paradox has occurred in certain road networks [NYT8 and 2 journal article refs]. (Valiant and Roughgarden 2010)
An author referencing the NYT to establish public interest in a topic, or to move from the abstract to the concrete, is taking advantage of genre differences between scholarship and journalism and therefore implicitly acknowledging that scholarship and journalism differ. In cases where no shift in specificity is made and the NYT is cocited with journal articles, the author does not acknowledge any genre differences between the NYT and scholarship. Such references account for 20–30 percent of NYT referencing, somewhat higher in science and engineering fields than in social sciences.
Citing Academic Writing in the NYT
Professors publish in the NYT and journal articles reference these pieces. Paul Krugman is not only a professor at Princeton and the London School of Economics but also a columnist for the NYT, a position he held at the time he won the Nobel Prize in economics. Others write single pieces in the NYT Magazine. The magazine accounts for about 3 percent of cited items and 9 percent of citations.10 For example, University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman is the most cited NYT author, cited over 860 times in total. In 1970, Friedman published in the NYT Magazine an article entitled: “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” This article was little noticed until the past decade when corporate social responsibility became a hot area of management research. In recent years, the Friedman piece is often cited in corporate social responsibility articles when they frame the field in the following fashion:
The Web of Science indicates that in 2010, 20 percent of articles with “corporate social responsibility” in their titles referenced the Friedman 1970 article in the NYT Magazine. The article was republished in a book in 2007, but only one article referenced the book version in 2010.Friedman argued that corporations do the most good for society by focusing solely on shareholders and making profits (Friedman 1970). Others however argue that corporations have broader societal responsibilities (many other authors referenced).
Another highly cited piece in the NYT Magazine written by a professor was an article reporting the results of the Stanford prison experiment by Philip Zimbardo, Stanford social psychologist. In this experiment, a group of students were divided into prisoners and guards for two weeks; the experiment was halted after six days due to the extreme cruelty that emerged. Zimbardo published the results of the experiment in 1973 as “Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison” in International Journal of Criminology & Penology. In the same year, he published “The mind is a formidable jailer: A Pirandellian prison” in the NYT Magazine. The NYT Magazine version has been cited 132 times. Though the NYT piece is cited only 20 percent as much as the academic journal version, the two citation records show the same time trends.
One reason professors write for the NYT and reference the NYT may be that the NYT takes an academic approach to news. During the 1970s, managing and then executive editor Abe Rosenthal shifted emphasis “from conventional fast-breaking news stories to more thoughtful and descriptive articles on social and demographic trends, ideas, literary controversies and, lately, white-collar crime” (Anonymous 1977). This approach is conducive to scholars using the NYT as a primary source. The article is not just academic-like in its approach; it relies heavily on academics as sources. NYT stories frequently quote professors, and many stories discuss the results of academic research—24 percent of NYT articles within the past twelve months included one or more of the terms: university, professor, or study.11 In cultivating an academic approach, the NYT did not become an academic journal; rather it differentiated itself among newspapers. In doing so, it became the most useful newspaper for academics, who when using it as a source of data, or in justifying a study of the NYT, do so not by mentioning the NYT’s intellectual character, but rather by positioning the NYT as the quintessential newspaper, the newspaper that sets the agenda for other news media. This aligns with findings of journalism scholarship that the NYT often does set the news agenda in the United States (Golan 2006; Shoemaker and Reese 1996).
Discussion
The NYT is referenced surprisingly often in the scholarly literature. Of the US articles published in 2010, 1.25 percent referenced the NYT accounting for 15,000 references. NYT referencing has grown faster than the number of articles since 1980, with growth accelerating after 2006. Articles in all fields reference NYT articles, though law exhibits the highest rate of referencing, followed by social sciences, medical sciences, then science and engineering fields. The NYT is referenced far more often than other newspapers, perhaps because it has cultivated a serious, intellectual approach to news for over 100 years.
Narrowing the focus to science, engineering, social sciences, and humanities to examine the context in which references occur suggests the NYT is a flexible resource when used in constructing academic arguments. Five broad reasons scholars reference NYT articles were identified. First, scholars studying the NYT or New York City naturally use the NYT as a source. There are about sixty of these articles a year. Second, scholars cite press coverage to establish public interest in their topic. In these contexts, the NYT is usually cocited with other press. Such articles account for about 20 percent of science and 10 percent of social science and humanities NYT references. Third, scholars can use the NYT as a source of a quote or information on an event, recent or historical. Here writers are leveraging the differences between the scholarly and newspaper genres using the newspaper to import specificity and concreteness into a more abstract discussion. This usage accounts for about 40 percent of NYT referencing. Fourth, about 20 percent of the time in science and 10 percent in social sciences, NYT referencing is identical to referencing of journal articles. Finally, articles in the NYT Magazine written by Milton Friedman and Philip Zimbardo are often cited. There are even a few self-citations.
The first challenge in interpreting NYT referencing is its invisibility. The bibliometric literature would be an obvious home for an examination of referencing. However, bibliometricians largely work with material indexed in the Web of Science. Most of the NYT is “non-indexed” and nonindexed material has been explored primarily to find important academic material not indexed such as books, conferences, or journals (Butler and Visser 2006; Nederhof, van Leeuwen, and van Raan 2010). Those examining the relationship between science and media also miss the phenomenon. The study of public understanding of science takes media coverage of science as its subject. Thus, they look at the reverse phenomenon: newspaper articles about science, not science’s use of newspaper articles. Those examining the effect of media on scholarship explore changes in scientific practice brought about by an increasing orientation to obtaining media coverage of research (see e.g., Rödder, Franzen, and Weingart 2012), not how scholarship increasingly makes use of newspaper articles. NYT referencing is invisible both to communities examining referencing and to those looking at the relationship between media and science.
The science studies literature exhibits a long-standing concern with demarcation documented in, for example, Merton’s norms and boundary work (Gieryn 1983; Lamont and Molnar 2002). Since the press, even the NYT, is not academic literature, science studies thinking about boundaries might be relevant. Gieryn reported sarcasm and amusement accompanying scientists’ accounts of trying to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s cold fusion results using the only available sources of information, CNN and newspapers including the NYT (Gieryn 1999, 222). Clearly, this was science as it should not be done. In contrast, the authors referencing the NYT seem to be unaware of breaching any supposedly sacred boundary. They are found treating the NYT on a par with scholarship as a creator of social knowledge. Such casual indifference is not easily reconciled with a framework based on heightened awareness of difference.
The boundaries between scholarship and other knowledge enterprises are maintained to enhance the “embodiment of knowledge as a source of worldly power” (Fuller 1991, 301) and the integrity of the knowledge produced (Weingart 2001). That engagement with the NYT threatens neither the power nor the integrity of scholarship is suggested by the high citation rates of both the Friedman and Zimbardo NYT pieces as well as their journal articles; by Paul Krugman winning the Nobel Prize in economics while writing a column for the NYT; and by a study establishing that NYT coverage enhanced the citation rate of covered journal articles. Phillips et al. (1991) took advantage of a strike at the NYT during which a limited “edition of record” was published, but not sold. Articles in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) selected by the NYT for coverage were studied. Citation rates of NEJM articles covered in editions that were distributed were compared with citation rates of NEJM article covered in editions not distributed due to the strike. NEJM articles publicized by the NYT were more highly cited in each of the ten years after publication than the control articles. The largest difference was in the first year after publication during which the articles publicized by the NYT received 72.8 percent more citations.
The image of a homogenous entity called science with a fragile sense of power and integrity defending rigid boundaries serves us less well in framing scholarly engagement with the NYT than do conceptions of a heterogeneous, changing enterprise. Krugman’s column and Friedman and Zimbardo’s articles in the NYT Magazine serve as reminders that social scientists and humanists work in more than one genre, not just journal articles but also books and what might be termed enlightenment literature (Hicks 2004). Enlightenment literature represents knowledge reaching out beyond the scholarly community (Nederhof and Zwann 1991, 335). Burnhill and Tubby-Hille found that in the United Kingdom “projects in education [were] reaching practitioners through such periodicals as the Times Education Supplement, with researchers in sociology, social administration, and socio-legal studies publishing in such periodicals as New Society and Nursing Times” (Burnhill and Tubby-Hille 1994, 142). Membership journals, through which scholars speak to a broad scholarly audience outside their specialty, can be viewed as a type of enlightenment publishing. American membership journals are indexed in the Web of Science and often exhibit high rates of NYT referencing, examples include: Phi Delta Kappan; PMLA—the journal of the Modern Language Association of America; Academic Medicine—the official, peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, and Daedalus—the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Enlightenment publishing is widespread (and becoming more so with the advent of blogs) but traditionally has been removed from consideration in evaluation and studies of science and scholarship. Recent work bringing into focus traditional forms of enlightenment literature (Osrecki 2012), as well as interest in the role of blogs and tweets in science, reminds us that any realistic understanding of scholarship must recognize its heterogeneity.
The idea of scholarship as a heterogeneous evolving entity is reminiscent of mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994) or postnormal science (Turnpenny, Jones, and Lorenzoni 2010). Homogeneous science with a rigid boundary evokes mode 1 associations, while increasing engagement with the NYT aligns with elements of mode 2. Mode 2 scholarship is produced in the context of application, is transdisciplinary, organizationally diverse, socially accountable, and aims to be socially useful as well as being considered high quality as assessed by peers. Mode 1 research in contrast is disciplinary, university based, autonomous, and assessed only by peers. Increased referencing of the NYT signals increased recognition by scholars that sound knowledge is produced in diverse institutions beyond universities, which aligns with the organizational diversity said to characterize mode 2 research. NYT references are more recent than their accompanying journal article references because information on current events not yet analyzed in academic articles is gleaned from the NYT. This is consistent with scholarship drawing closer to current concerns, which would likely characterize work produced in the context of application that values social accountability.
This is also consistent with a scholarship of society comprising porous interacting genres creating a complex ecology of public knowledge. Traditionally science was autonomous, not porous. Knowledge was built upon previous knowledge in the same area. This self-sufficiency was evidenced by high rates of internal referencing, that is, relatively low rates of referencing to material not indexed in the Web of Science. More porous scholarship exhibits high rates of referencing to material outside the core journals indexed in the Web of Science. NYT referencing seems to represent this more open approach, even in nonsocial science and humanities articles—that is, science, engineering, and medicine. Science, engineering, and medicine articles referencing the NYT reference all types of material outside the core scientific journals at a higher rate than other articles. In this characteristic, NYT-referencing science, engineering, and medicine articles resemble social science and humanities articles, all of which heavily reference material outside the core journals. Articles in science, engineering, and medicine journals that reference the NYT are renegades that are more open to influence from outside the canon. Social science scholarship is in general more porous and seems to find past journal articles insufficient foundation upon which to advance knowledge without supplement from a broader, more heterogeneous set of less vetted sources.
The contrast between porous and autonomous knowledge enterprises extends to the journal level. Journals with high rates of NYT referencing often have fairly low impact factors. Comparing such journals with high impact factor journals in their field suggests a contrast between journals that describe themselves as concerned with currency, policy, a position around issues or topics, and an audience that includes practitioners or decision makers, against those that emphasize quality, peer review, and position themselves in terms of scientific fields. Examples of journals with high rates of NYT referencing include:
•
Energy Policy—journal addressing issues of energy supply, demand, and utilization that confront decision makers, managers, consultants, politicians, planners, and researchers.
•
Independent Review—interdisciplinary economics journal devoted to the study of political economy and the critical analysis of government policy.
•
Health Affairs—health policy issues of current concern.
•
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine—interdisciplinary scholarly journal that places important biological or medical subjects in broader scientific, social, or humanistic contexts.
•
Globalizations—explores new, multidisciplinary meanings of globalization in the widest possible space for discussion of alternatives to a narrow economic understanding.
Such transdisciplinary, policy-relevant journals engaged with an audience including more than scholars would seem to exemplify a porous mode 2 scholarship. Peer-reviewed, highly cited journals positioned in relation to fields of scholarship would seem to exemplify an autonomous mode 1.
The scope of the mode 2 interpretation must be carefully delineated. The contrasting types of journals are found in some fields—economics and public health, for example—but not others. Business and management journals all seem to have low rates of NYT referencing, presumably because the subject matter engages less with broader societal issues than economics or public health. In political science and international affairs, all journals have high rates of NYT referencing12 presumably reflecting the close relationship between the press, public, and politics that forms the subject matter of much of scholarship on mass media. Similarly, journals in media and communication studies often reference the NYT. Understanding the extremely high rate of NYT referencing in law journals would require an understanding of law scholarship itself, an understanding that awaits development (though see Latour 2010).
Mode 2 also involves a disputed claim to change over time. Although the rate of NYT referencing is growing swiftly, motivating this study in fact, the enlightenment literature is not new nor are the journals that heavily reference the NYT. There is evidence that journals may go through phases emphasizing NYT referencing more heavily at some points and scholarly journals more heavily at others (Taubert, 2012). So in the absence of more historical data, it would be risky to claim that NYT referencing has never been as high as it is now. The historical development of porous scholarship would be of interest, especially in the sciences and engineering. Was there a time when no articles in scientific journals referenced outside the core journal set? Have scientific journals become more open to more porous articles over time? Was this development responsive to world events or to concerns of the scientific community?
The research reported here suggests additional productive lines of inquiry. To fully understand the role of the NYT in scholarship, we need to study the referencing context two or three decades ago to identify changes over time. We need to incorporate medical sciences and law into the referencing analysis. We need to study more generally the move between specificity and abstraction in academic articles and assess the role of NYT referencing in relation to other ways to make that move. We need to explore whether the topics of NYT referencing articles differ systematically from topics of articles that do not reference the NYT. More generally, we need to recognize the existence of porous scholarship and develop as powerful an understanding of its workings as we have for autonomous scholarship. Of particular interest is not which type of scholarship has greater academic influence—porous or autonomous—the higher impact factors of autonomous journals suggest the answer to that question. Rather, tracing the connections between scholarship and cultural and political developments would answer the question of whether porous or autonomous scholarship has more influence on culture and politics. Presumably, those who engage with society as suggested by NYT referencing would also like their work to influence society. If high academic impact translates into respect beyond the academic community, academic respect might be the most powerful resource in influencing societal debate, more powerful than engaging with societal issues in the construction of the scholarship. Then porous scholarship might be a dead end, its low academic impact guaranteeing limited societal influence. On the other hand, influencing society may require close alignment between issues and scholarship achieved only in a more porous scholarship. But if that alignment in turn compromises the integrity of the knowledge as suggested by Rödder, Franzen, and Weingart (2012), then there is a fundamental weakness at the heart of the knowledge society.
Conclusion
In this study, we investigate the relationship between the scholarly literature and the NYT as expressed through references in journal articles. We find that NYT referencing is extensive and that growth in NYT referencing has accelerated in recent years, probably due to easier access to NYT articles over the Internet. Referencing is widespread, though most intensive in law, international relations, and political science. Nevertheless, academics have not become journalists and journalists have not become academics. Examining the contexts of NYT references, we find authors most often leveraging the differences between the scholarly and newspaper genres to advance their arguments. Sometimes the NYT is referenced because the NYT is the subject of the research. Sometimes New York City is the subject, which leads to extensive use of the NYT as a source. More often, authors seek to establish the importance of their topic using press coverage as evidence of public concern. The NYT is also used as a primary source, for example, in discussing a recent event or inserting words spoken by an influential person. Perhaps half of NYT referencing uses the NYT as a primary source. Authors who use the NYT for evidence of public concern and to support their turn to specificity are leveraging differences between scholarship and journalism as genres of social knowledge making. In contrast cociting with journal articles or citing academics writing in the NYT are patterns that seem to violate long-standing concerns with demarcation among scholars. These patterns can be understood within a framework that recognizes that social scientists and humanists work in more than one genre, one of which is enlightenment literature. That the NYT reigns supreme in the enlightenment literature testifies to the success of 100 years of strategic development that explicitly targeted academia at key points. The NYT and academia, though distinct, have become symbiotic enterprises within the ecology of public knowledge.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks the KB team for its collective effort in the development of the KB database.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Footnotes
1. With the exception of the relationship between economists and markets which has been studied.
2. Source Fulltext Sources Online—FSO—database.
3. The same breadth would be seen in a map of the world; about one-quarter of articles citing the New York Times (NYT) do not list a US author.
4. The number in science and engineering fields is somewhat exaggerated because for journals with multiple field designations, the first field is used. Some law, humanities, or social science journals thus appear in science fields, for example, Journal of the History of Biology, which appears in biology. Information science and operations research appear in computing, where others would classify them as social science (library science) and management. Such misclassifications account for about 20 percent of the science and engineering articles on the map.
5. US articles published in 2010 and indexed in the Web of Science.
6. Opinion leaders, for the purpose of this study, are defined as those individuals whose influence on business, social, political, environmental, and educational issues far exceeds their numbers in the population. They exercise far-reaching and powerful influences on the opinions of their fellow Americans by framing and defining the issues that will largely determine the future course of the nation.
7. This contrasts with discussion of motivation, which journalists will ascribe on their own authority (Carey 1986, 177).
8. Title of NYT article: What if they closed 42nd Street and nobody noticed?
9. Web of Science citation analysis conducted January 16, 2012.
10. This is an undercount as not all references contain the string “mag” which was used to produce these estimates.
11. A search of the NYT was undertaken on ProQuest Newstand New Platform on July 27, 2011. Searching for “the” returned 75,596 results assumed to be the total article count. Within these results, a search of the full text for “university or professor or study” returned 18,294 entries, or 24.2 percent.
12. Except International Organization, the leading international relations journal, this journal’s guidelines for contributors bans mention of newspaper or magazine articles in the reference list. Relevant information, which does not include article title or author, is to be placed in footnotes. This means that the references to newspapers and magazines are not indexed in the Web of Science. This journal is enforcing the clear demarcation between scholarly and newspaper references that science studies literature might lead us to expect. However, this journal is the exception.
References
Abramson Miron, Shoseyov O., Shani Z. 2010. “Plant Cell Wall Reconstruction toward Improved Lignocellulosic Production and Processability.” Plant Science 178 (2): 61–72.
Anonymous. 1977, August. “The Kingdom and the Cabbage: What's Newer than News at the New York Times.” Time 110 (7): 84.
Barbaro Michael, Zeller Tom Jr. 2006, August 9. “A Face is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749.” The New York Times. Accessed July 16, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?pagewanted=all
Bazerman Charles. 1998. “Emerging Perspectives on the Many Dimensions of Scientific Discourse.” In Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourse of Science, edited by Martin J. R., Veel Robert, 15–30. London, England: Routledge.
Bostwick Wendy B., Boyd C. J., Hughes T. L., McCabe S. E. 2010. “Dimensions of Sexual Orientation and the Prevalence of Mood and Anxiety Disorders in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health 100 (3): 468–75.
Burnhill P. M., Tubby-Hille M. E. 1994. “On Measuring the Relation between Social Science Research Activity and Research Publication.” Research Evaluation 3 (4): 130–52.
Butler Linda, Visser M. S. 2006. “Extending Citation Analysis to Non-source Items.” Scientometrics 66 (2): 327–43.
Camic C. 1992. “Reputation and Predecessor Selection: Parsons and the Institutionalists.” American Sociological Review 57 (4): 421–45.
Camic C., Gross N., Lamont M. 2011. Social Knowledge in the Making. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Carey J. W. 1986. “Why and How?” In Reading the News, edited by Manoff R. K., Schudson M., 146–96. New York: Pantheon.
Cellini Stephanie Riegg, Ferreira F., Rothstein J. 2010. “The Value of School Facility Investments: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 125 (1): 215–61
Eisenhardt K. M., Graebner M. 2007. “Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges.” Academy of Management Review 50 (1): 25–32.
Erdos and Morgan. 2011. Erdos & Morgan releases 2011 opinion leaders survey. Accessed June 11, 2013. http://www.erdosmorgan.com/pr/pr_20111104-1.html.
Evans J. H. 2005. “Stratification in Knowledge Production: Author Prestige and the Influence of an American Academic Debate.” Poetics 33 (2): 111–33.
Friedman Milton. 1970, September 13. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Its Profits.” New York Times Magazine 32: 122–126.
Fuller S. 1991. “Disciplinary Boundaries and the Rhetoric of the Social.” Poetics Today 12 (2): 301–25.
Garfield Eugene. 1975. “The Obliteration Phenomenon.” Current Contents 51/52 (December): 5–7.
Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, England: Sage.
Gieryn T. F. 1983. “Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–95.
Gieryn T. F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Golan G. 2006. “Inter-media Agenda Setting and Global News Coverage: Assessing the Influence of the New York Times on Three Network Television Evening News Programs. Journalism Studies 7 (2): 323–33.
Golias Mihalis, Boile M., Theofanis S., Efstathiou C. 2010. “The Berth-Scheduling Problem.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2166 (1): 20–27.
Hargens Lowell. 2004. “What is Mertonian Sociology of Science?” Scientometrics 60 (1): 63–70.
Hicks Diana. 2004. “The Four Literatures of Social Science.” In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Studies, edited by Moed H., Glänzel W., Schmoch U., 473–96. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Knorr-Cetina K. 2011. “Financial Analysis: Epistemic Profile of an Evaluative Science.” In Social Knowledge in the Making, edited by Camic C., Gross N., Lamont M., 405–42. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kushner Barak. 2010. “Treacherous Allies: The Cold War in East Asia and American Postwar Anxiety.” Journal of Contemporary History 45 (4): 812–43.
Lamont M., Molnar V. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 28 (1): 167–95.
Latour Bruno. 2010. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d’Etat. London, England: Polity.
Latour Bruno, Steven Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lorin C., Siemko A., Todesco E., Verweij A. 2010. “Predicting the Quench Behavior of the LHC Dipoles During Commissioning.” IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 20 (3): 135–39.
MacDonald S. P. 1994. Professional Academic Writing in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Manoff R. K., Schudson M. eds. 1986. Reading the News. New York: Pantheon.
Nederhof A. J., van Leeuwen T. N., van Raan A. F. J. 2010. “Highly Cited Non-journal Publications in Political Science, Economics and Psychology: A First Exploration.” Scientometrics 83 (2): 363–74.
Nederhof A. J., Zwaan R. A. 1991. “Quality Judgments of Journals as Indicators of Research Performance in the Humanities and the Social and Behavioral Sciences.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42 (5): 332–40.
Osrecki Fran. 2012. “Diagnosing the Present: Towards a Sociology of Medialized Social Science.” In The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and its Repercussions Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, edited by Rödder S., Franzen M., Weingart P., 307–22. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Peck Jamie, Theodore N., Brenner N. 2010. “Postneoliberalism and Its Malcontents.” Antipode 41 (s1): 94–116.
Phillips David, Kanter E. J., Bednarczyk B., Talstad P. L. 1991. “Importance of the Lay Press in the Transmission of Medical Knowledge to the Scientific Community.” The New England Journal of Medicine 325 (16), 1180–83.
Place Ben, Anderson B., Mekebri A., Furlong E. T., Gray J. L., Tjeerdema R., Field J. 2010. “A Role for Analytical Chemistry in Advancing our Understanding of the Occurrence, Fate, and Effects of Corexit Oil Dispersants.” Environmental Science & Technology 44 (16): 6016–18.
Rafols Ishmael, Porter Alan, Leydesdorff Loet. 2010. “Science Overlay Maps: A New Tool for Research Policy and Library Management.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (1): 871–87.
Rödder S., Franzen M., Weingart P. eds. 2012. The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and its Repercussions, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Saravanan Kuppan, Balaya P., Reddy M. V., Chowdari B. V. R., Vittal J. J. 2010. “Morphology Controlled Synthesis of LiFePO4/C Nanoplates for Li-Ion Batteries.” Energy & Environmental Science 3 (4): 457–63.
Schudson Michael. 1978. Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers. New York: Basic Books.
Schudson Michael. 2003. Sociology of the News. New York: Norton.
Schudson Michael. 2010. “Political Observatories, Databases & News in the Emerging Ecology of Public Information.” Daedulus 139 (2): 100–109.
Seltzer W. 2011. “Exposing the Flaws of Censorship by Domain Name.” Security & Privacy, IEEE 9 (1): 83–87.
Shoemaker Pamela J., Reese Stephen D. 1996. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. New York: Longman.
Swartzlander Grover A Jr, Peterson T. J., Artusio-Glimpse A. B., Raisanen A. D. 2010. “Stable Optical Lift.” Nature Photonics 5 (1): 48–51.
Taubert Niels C. 2012. “Minerva and the Development of Science (Policy) Studies.” Minerva 50 (3): 261–75.
Turnpenny John, Jones Mavis, Lorenzoni Irene. 2010. “Where Now for Post-normal Science?: A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 36 (3): 287–306.
Valiant Gregory, Roughgarden T. 2010. “Braess’s Paradox in Large Random Graphs.” Random Structures & Algorithms 37 (4): 495–515.
Weingart Peter. 2001. “The Loss of Distance: Science in Transition.” In Science, History and Social Activism: A Tribute to Everett Mendelsohn, edited by Allen G. E., MacLeod R. M., 167–84. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Wignell Peter. 1998. “Technicality and Abstraction in Social Science.” In Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourse of Science, edited by Martin J. R., Veel R., 297–326. London, England: Routledge.
Biographies
Diana Hicks is a professor and chair of the School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech. She specializes in science and technology policy as well as in innovative use of large databases of patents and papers to address questions of broad interest at the intersection of science and technology. Her recent work focuses on the challenges of bibliometric analysis in the social sciences and humanities as well as on patterns of concentration of research resources.
Jian Wang is a PhD candidate in public policy at Georgia Institute of Technology and researcher at the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ). His research interests include science and technology policy, technology and innovation management, social networks, and bibliometric methods.
Supplementary Material
New York Times
File (sthv_diana_hicks.mp3)
- Download
- 4.11 MB
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: July 25, 2013
Issue published: November 2013
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Science, Technology, & Human Values.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 1198
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 13 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 14
- Not All the News That’s Fit to Print: The ...
- Tracing the legitimacy of Artificial Intelligence: A longitudinal anal...
- Which papers cited which tweets? An exploratory analysis based on Scop...
- Seeing impact: genres referencing journal articles
- Contextualising tragedy in places of assembly through cases of New Yor...
- Newspaper Citations in Scientific Publications Indexed in Web of Scien...
- The emergence of neuromarketing investigated through online public com...
- A Model for Analysis of Environmental Accidents Based on Fuzzy Logic
- Ranking of Journals based on Citations, H-Index and RAI, RUAI, UAI: A ...
- Citation Trend of Byline and Dateline Articles of “The Guardian”
- Reading practices in scholarly work: from articles and books to blogs
- A characterization of professional media and its links to research
- Mode 2 and the Tension Between Excellence and Utility: The Case of a P...
- Can the technological impact of academic journals be evaluated? The pr...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
View options
PDF/ePub
View PDF/ePubGet access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
