Working paper: Low citation of Army journals
Working paper: Low citation of Army journals
Figure 1. Increase in citations including URLs over time in CGSC monographs and Military Review
** Note: The Harding Project will be participating in the Security Studies Seminar at West Point from 7-8 February, presenting this paper and moderating a discussion on public facing policy outlets. Let us know if you’d like to linkup. **
Stick with me.
Citations may seem boring, but careful citation analysis reveals that increasing journal accessibility is key to renewing professional discourse–and that the Army’s focus on transforming our journals to a web-first, mobile-friendly format with social media support is on the right track.
Effective Army journals must be accessible. According to our namesake Forrest Harding, the Army’s journals are responsible for the “dissemination of military instruction and the stimulation of thought on military subjects” in a convenient form that we’d want to read. Many outlets compete for the attention of the Army’s soldiers, but only our professional journals provide space for niche professional topics like bridging or the combined arms breach, or to discuss the impacts of new technologies on the Army, like the impact of data modernization on human resources professionals. Unfortunately, this working paper finds that Army’s journals, on average, neither effectively disseminate nor stimulate professional discourse today.
To understand whether the Army’s journals are stimulating professional discourse, I studied the citations of 120 Military Review articles and 90 student theses from the Command and General Staff College. Of the 9,001 citations in these 210 pieces, Military Review articles had 3,039 citations of non-professional writing and 150 professional sources, while CGSC monographs had 5,710 non-professional and 150 professional citations.1
Detailed analysis of citation trends revealed preference for online sources, concerningly low citation of professional writing, and a preference for web-first professional outlets.
Overwhelming preference for online sources. Authors overwhelmingly cite articles they find online. Figure 1 shows that citations of more recent sources almost universally include the URL to the source.2
Low citation of professional writing. The median number of citations of the Army’s professional journals in Military Review articles and Command and General Staff College student theses is zero (with a mean of less than 2 citations in both types of writing). Less than 2% of citations in this study were of professional sources.
Web-first professional outlets (War on the Rocks and the Modern War Institute) overtook the Army’s journals to become a plurality of professional citations starting in 2022 in Military Review (see Figures 2).3
Figure 2. Citation percentages of professional articles by type by year
Fortunately, this analysis also suggests the Army’s efforts to renew professional journals are on the right track. The sustained growth of citation of web-first professional outlets from the first citations in 2014 to a plurality of professional citations in Military Review in 2023 indicate that Army authors engage with accessible content. Improving access to journals and their archives will likely stimulate increased engagement and discourse. Likewise, educating librarians and archivists on the utility of these sources will help them help students find relevant readings in the Army’s journals. Finally, adding requirements to engage with professional writing in the Army’s schools could also increase awareness and impact of the Army’s journals.
Download the full paper and send your comments!
An aside on definitions: In this analysis, professional writing included professional bulletins, Parameters, and other CGSC monographs. Web-first professional outlets included only War on the Rocks and West Point’s Modern War Institute.
Including the URL suggests that writers found the sources online, rather than reading books found in the stacks or hunting for sources in archives.
The preference for online sources is not observed in CSGC monographs, though the monographs studied are older and may not consider web-first outlets sufficiently scholarly.