Co-citation
frequency with which two documents are cited together by other documents
Co-citation is the frequency with which two documents are cited together by other documents. If at least one other document cites two documents in common, these documents are said to be co-cited. The more co-citations two documents receive, the higher their co-citation strength, and the more likely they are semantically related. Like bibliographic coupling, co-citation is a semantic similarity measure for documents that makes use of citation analyses.
The figure to the right illustrates the concept of co-citation and a more recent variation of co-citation which accounts for the placement of citations in the full text of documents. The figure's left image shows the Documents A and B, which are both cited by Documents C, D and E; thus Documents A and B have a co-citation strength, or co-citation index of three. This score is usually established using citation indexes. Documents featuring high numbers of co-citations are regarded as more similar.
The figure's right image shows a citing document which cites the Documents 1, 2 and 3. Both the Documents 1 and 2 and the Documents 2 and 3 have a co-citation strength of one, given that they are cited together by exactly one other document.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Co-citation” is frequency with which two documents are cited together by other documents. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Co-citation, frequency and documents, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “frequency with which two documents are cited together by other documents” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 31, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q1785764. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Co-citation”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Co-citation primary sources, Co-citation archive and Co-citation research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Co-citation”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Co-citation” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.