Am I wrong to think from eyeballing the entire post at your website that more recent papers get uptake faster than the 20th century cohorts? If so could one reason be that citation practices have improved (we cite more) and the internet just makes preprints and online publication so much more efficient and accessible, which accelerates citation rates?
The number of citations has definitely gone up a ton. That is, the mean number of citations per article is much higher How much of that is cultural shift, and how much of that is access to journals, I'm not sure. But the mean number of citations per article *to other journals I'm studying*, went from about 2.5 twenty years ago, to over 9 now. So there's been a huge shift.
Some of that is that Web of Science now indexes a lot more than it used to, so journals like Imprint that were not counted twenty years ago are counted now. But a big chunk of it is cultural/technological shift, like you're suggesting.
Am I wrong to think from eyeballing the entire post at your website that more recent papers get uptake faster than the 20th century cohorts? If so could one reason be that citation practices have improved (we cite more) and the internet just makes preprints and online publication so much more efficient and accessible, which accelerates citation rates?
The number of citations has definitely gone up a ton. That is, the mean number of citations per article is much higher How much of that is cultural shift, and how much of that is access to journals, I'm not sure. But the mean number of citations per article *to other journals I'm studying*, went from about 2.5 twenty years ago, to over 9 now. So there's been a huge shift.
Some of that is that Web of Science now indexes a lot more than it used to, so journals like Imprint that were not counted twenty years ago are counted now. But a big chunk of it is cultural/technological shift, like you're suggesting.