Search

Purpose: Research objects, such as datasets and classification standards, are difficult to be incorporated into a document-centric framework of citations, which relies on unique citable works. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorder (DSM)—a dominant classification scheme used for mental disorder diagnosis—however provides a unique lens on examining citations to a research object, given that it straddles the boundaries as a single research object with changing manifestations. Design/methodology/approach: Using over 180,000 citations received by the DSM, this paper analyzes how the citation history of DSM is represented by its various versions, and how it is cited in different knowledge domains as an important boundary object. Findings: It shows that all recent DSM versions exhibit a similar citation cascading pattern, which is characterized by a strong replacement effect between two successive versions. Moreover, the shift of the disciplinary contexts of DSM citations can be largely explained by different DSM versions as distinct epistemic objects. Practical implications: Based on these results, the authors argue that all DSM versions should be treated as a series of connected but distinct citable objects. The work closes with a discussion of the ways in which the existing scholarly infrastructure can be reconfigured to acknowledge and trace a broader array of research objects. Originality/value: This paper connects quantitative methods and an important sociological concept, i.e. boundary object, to offer deeper insights into the scholarly communication system. Moreover, this work also evaluates how versioning, as a significant yet overlooked attribute of information resources, influenced the citation patterns of citable objects, which will contribute to more material-oriented scientific infrastructures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The data paper is an emerging academic genre that focuses on the description of research data objects. However, there is a lack of empirical knowledge about this rising genre in quantitative science studies, particularly from the perspective of its linguistic features. To fill this gap, this research aims to offer a first quantitative examination of which rhetorical moves—rhetorical units performing a coherent narrative function—are used in data paper abstracts, as well as how these moves are used. To this end, we developed a new classification scheme for rhetorical moves in data paper abstracts by expanding a well‐received system that focuses on English‐language research article abstracts. We used this expanded scheme to classify and analyze rhetorical moves used in two flagship data journals, Scientific Data and Data in Brief. We found that data papers exhibit a combination of introduction, method, results, and discussion‐ and data‐oriented moves and that the usage differences between the journals can be largely explained by journal policies concerning abstract and paper structure. This research offers a novel examination of how the data paper, a data‐oriented knowledge representation, is composed, which greatly contributes to a deeper understanding of research data and its publication in the scholarly communication system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]