Citation Impact 2008-2010

We were curious to see how S&P is doing as far as the impact of published articles on the field is concerned. Below we have compiled a list of all articles published in the four main semantics journals (Linguistics & Philosophy, Natural Language Semantics, Journal of Semantics, Semantics & Pragmatics) since 2008 (the year of S&P’s first published article) that have received 10 citations or more according to Google Scholar. There are not yet any articles published in 2011 on that list. So, let’s focus on the cohort of articles published between 2008 and 2010. The four journals combined published 141 main research articles in that time frame. 54 of those (= 38%) have received 10 or more citations. S&P published fewer articles than the other three journals (11 in fact: 1 in 2008, 3 in 2009, 7 in 2010), since we’re still ramping up the quantity of publications. But S&P already has an outsized share of the top impact articles: we have 5 articles in the Top 20, and an overall rate of 64% of our articles have already received 10 or more citations.

By all accounts then, S&P’s first three years were a resounding success quality-wise. Now, we’ll be working on increasing our quantitive share of the semantics market while not decreasing our quality share. You can help: submit your best work to S&P. You will receive top-notch and fast peer-reviewing and editorial feedback and fast time-to-print. Plus, your work will be openly accessible to anyone with access to an internet connection, rather than being locked behind prohibitive subscription barriers.

[There are other things to notice, such as the domination in the upper range of articles by NLS, distancing the two older journals JoS and, especially, L&P.]

  1. [54 citations] Kehler, Kertz, Rohde et al. – JoS 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited
  2. [53 citations] Hackl – NLS 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half
  3. [48 citations] Chemla – NLS 2009. Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data
  4. [42 citations] Schlenker – S&P 2009. Local contexts
  5. [37 citations] Rothstein – JoS 2010. Counting and the mass/count distinction
  6. [32 citations] Wilhelm – NLS 2008. Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųłiné
  7. [31 citations] Barker, Shan – S&P 2008. Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding
  8. [28 citations] Geurts, Pouscoulous – S&P 2009. Embedded implicatures
  9. [28 citations] Breheny – JoS 2008. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases
  10. [27 citations] von Fintel, Gillies – NLS 2010. Must… stay… strong!
  11. [27 citations] Rullmann, Matthewson et al. – NLS 2008. Modals as distributive indefinites
  12. [27 citations] Magri – NLS 2009. A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures
  13. [24 citations] Elbourne – L&P 2008. Demonstratives as individual concepts
  14. [22 citations] Chemla – S&P 2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data
  15. [21 citations] Matushansky – L&P 2008. On the linguistic complexity of proper names
  16. [21 citations] Farkas, Bruce – JoS 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions
  17. [21 citations] Alonso-Ovalle, Menendez-Benito – NLS 2010. Modal indefinites
  18. [21 citations] Bale – L&P 2008. A universal scale of comparison
  19. [20 citations] Nouwen – S&P 2010. Two kinds of modified numerals
  20. [20 citations] Singh – L&P 2008. On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency
  21. [19 citations] Kissine – NLS 2008. Why will is not a modal
  22. [18 citations] Gualmini, Hulsey, Hacquard et al. – NLS 2008. The Question–Answer Requirement for scope assignment
  23. [18 citations] Harris et al. – L&P 2009. Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives
  24. [17 citations] Abusch – JoS 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives
  25. [17 citations] Ippolito – JoS 2008. On the meaning of only
  26. [17 citations] Hacquard – L&P 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries
  27. [17 citations] Morzycki – NLS 2009. Degree modification of gradable nouns: size adjectives and adnominal degree morphemes
  28. [17 citations] Lascarides et al. – JoS 2009. Agreement, disputes and commitments in dialogue
  29. [16 citations] Bale et al. – JoS 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction
  30. [16 citations] Gillies – S&P 2010. Iffiness
  31. [16 citations] Brasoveanu – L&P 2008. Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals
  32. [16 citations] Moltmann – L&P 2009. Degree structure as trope structure: a trope-based analysis of positive and comparative adjectives
  33. [15 citations] Villalta – L&P 2008. Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish
  34. [15 citations] Syrett, Kennedy et al. – JoS 2010. Meaning and context in children’s understanding of gradable adjectives
  35. [15 citations] Lascarides et al. – JoS 2009. A formal semantic analysis of gesture
  36. [14 citations] Arregui – L&P 2009. On similarity in counterfactuals
  37. [14 citations] Chemla – JoS 2008. An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions
  38. [13 citations] Abbott – L&P 2008. Presuppositions and common ground
  39. [13 citations] Hacquard – NLS 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries
  40. [13 citations] Chaves – L&P 2008. Linearization-based word-part ellipsis
  41. [13 citations] Moltmann – NLS 2008. Intensional verbs and their intentional objects
  42. [12 citations] Koenig, Mauner, Bienvenue et al. – JoS 2008. What with? The anatomy of a (proto)-role
  43. [12 citations] Nicolas – L&P 2008. Mass nouns and plural logic
  44. [12 citations] Dekker – L&P 2008. A multi-dimensional treatment of quantification in extraordinary English
  45. [11 citations] Nouwen – NLS 2008. Upper-bounded no more: the exhaustive interpretation of non-strict comparison
  46. [11 citations] Sharvit – L&P 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse
  47. [11 citations] Gualmini et al. – JoS 2009. Solving learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics
  48. [11 citations] Brasoveanu – JoS 2010. Decomposing modal quantification
  49. [11 citations] Davis – JoS 2009. Decisions, dynamics and the Japanese particle yo
  50. [11 citations] Lin – NLS 2009. Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters
  51. [10 citations] Martí – NLS 2008. The semantics of plural indefinite noun phrases in Spanish and Portuguese
  52. [10 citations] Beck – S&P 2010. Quantifiers in than-clauses
  53. [10 citations] Zweig – L&P 2009. Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature
  54. [10 citations] Francez – L&P 2009. Existentials, predication, and modification

[NB: data from February 5, 2012]

Total papers published by the four journals 2008–2010: 141
54 have received 10 citations or more (54/141 = 38%)

Share of the Top 54:

JoS: 15 papers (of 41 published 2008–2010) = 15/41 = 37%
L&P: 17 papers (of 55 published 2008–2010) = 17/55 = 31%
NLS: 15 papers (of 34 published 2008–2010) = 15/34 = 44%
S&P: 7 papers (of 11 published 2008–2010) = 7/11 = 64%

This entry was posted in General by Kai von Fintel. Bookmark the permalink.

About Kai von Fintel

I'm a professor of linguistics at MIT. I work on meaning. I am also Associate Dean of MIT's School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. I have a wife, two kids, two cats, and a dog. I live in an intentional community (Mosaic Commons Cohousing) in Berlin, Massachusetts. I am a runner. I like soccer, a lot. I was born on a cold winter’s night in a small village on the Lüneburg Heath in Northern Germany.

1 thought on “Citation Impact 2008-2010

  1. Interesting!

    At some point, it’d also be nice if somebody would be willing to do a more fine-grained analysis of citations in semantics journals, taking into account things like the kind of publication in which the citation appears (journal/edited volume/proceedings), the relevance of the citation to the topic of the citing paper (there’s a difference between citing something in a paper which directly addresses the same topic, and citing something as a general reference to an adjacent area which you take as the source of some assumptions), and subfield (e.g., the distinction between formal semantics/philosophy of language patterns may be different, given the different profiles of papers in the semantic Big Four).

    Of course, gathering such data is something where there often is often no natural limit after reaching which you really know you should stop. The information in this blog post is in some sense more than enough already.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s