ArticlePloS one2026
A data-driven comparative analysis on citation intents across scientific disciplines.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to conduct a first comparative analysis on citation intents across multiple scientific disciplines. To this end, we conducted a data-driven investigation into the characteristics of citation intents utilizing a large-scale dataset of 17,717 academic papers and 2,345,674 citation contexts from 21 Web of Science subject categories. We analyzed five key characteristics: i) inter-category distribution of citation intents, ii) average number of citation intents per article, iii) age distribution of citation intents, iv) similarity of the age distributions of citation intent, and v) predictability of the number of citation intents. We found out that there are significant differences in all five characteristics across different research disciplines. Specifically, Philosophy, Sociology, Area, and History prioritize Background and Motivation intents while exhibiting minimal engagement with Uses and Extends. Conversely, Computer Science AI represents a unique case, characterized by a dominant prevalence of Uses and Extends intents alongside the least frequent use of background-oriented citations. Furthermore, the age distributions of citation intents exhibit the lowest similarity in Area, and History. In terms of predictability, Biotechnology and Plant Science exhibit the highest correlation levels in citation intent counts, whereas Sociology, Philosophy, and History yield the lowest correlation coefficients. Our comparative analysis not only uncovers cross-disciplinary variations and establishes a standardized framework for the comparative analysis of citation intents, but also has applications in advancing the normalization of scholarly indicators, facilitating trend detection, and supporting curriculum design for specific scientific disciplines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.