In this text, I will evaluate Hu et al.’s 2024 article, “Is communication a dependent or involuted discipline? A citation analysis of communication publications from 2010 to 2020,” published in the Journal of Communication to assess whether the discipline of communication is autonomous and independent, based on the article’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological assumptions. They examine whether the discipline of communication is inward-looking by analyzing citation data (divided into subcategories such as self-citation, citation diversity, and citation balance). They conduct this analysis across 46 social science disciplines, including those they identify as “neighboring disciplines”: Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, and Business (Hu et al., 78). Their conclusion is that the Communication discipline cannot be characterized as inward-looking; while its relationship with other disciplines is increasing over time, the Communication discipline’s high self-citation rate compared to some disciplines (such as Sociology) could still contribute to a sense of inward-lookingness. The researchers recommend that academics in the Communication discipline prioritize interdisciplinary research.
The article examines the citation-based relationships with four neighboring disciplines through the categories of “knowledge producer,” “knowledge consumer,” and “knowledge transmitter” (Hu et al., 79). Within these categories, the study analyzes the number of citations given and/or received, as well as the “surplus” and “deficit” nature of these citations. These analyses are based on numerical data. “Surplus” refers to a position where citations are primarily given rather than received, while “deficit” denotes the opposite position. In the research conducted by considering the terms “surplus” and “deficit,” the frequency of citations in communication publications is investigated, with the aim of analyzing both citations made to other disciplines and those made within the discipline itself (Hu et al., 79).
This diversity of data is critical for understanding the position of the Communication discipline. The facts produced by quantitative data are, of course, indisputable. However, ambiguous statements do not align with the article’s tendency to explain everything through data. To illustrate this ambiguity by quoting from the article: “In quantitative terms, a SCR of 20%–30% (…) are probably desirable for disciplines such as Communication” (Hu et al., 84). A self-citation rate of 20–30% is, of course, a low figure, indicating that 70–80% of citations are directed toward other disciplines. Doesn’t this actually demonstrate that the Communication discipline acts as a knowledge sink? Being a knowledge sink can, in a sense, be a positive thing; it indicates that Communication is not involute but rather capable of interacting with many other fields and open to self-development. However, if the Communication field is to gain an autonomous and independent identity, articles within the field must critique their own discipline, discuss the various theories within it, and introduce new perspectives. Perhaps the concept of “involution,” (Hu et al., 77) as used in this article, could help the Communication discipline achieve an independent identity. When this happens, it could transition from being a “black hole” of information to becoming a source of knowledge. So, what are the elements that make a discipline autonomous and independent in its own right? In my view, this article serves as a starting point for reflecting on this issue.
The status of being a knowledge producer, transmitter, or consumer is connected to the paragraph above. When neighboring disciplines are taken into account, the discipline with a high citation rate is defined as a knowledge producer, the one granting citations as a knowledge consumer, and the one situated between these two extremes as a knowledge transmitter (Hu et al., 2024, p. 79). Analysis of the period between 2010 and 2020 revealed that the Psychology and Business disciplines served as sources, while the Sociology and Political Science disciplines, which were in the absorber and bridge positions in 2010, had moved closer to becoming sources by 2020 (Hu et al., 82). The Communication discipline, however, remained at the boundary or bridge position throughout the 10-year period (Hu et al., 82). These conclusions are drawn based on citation rates. It is concluded that characterizing Communication as “involuted” based on a low self-citation rate and an increasing rate of interaction with other disciplines is unfounded. So if that is the case, why has the Communication discipline remained at the boundary for 10 years? Isn’t stagnating in the same place a sign of involution? Of course, the discipline is not “involute” in the sense of “isolationism, internal development, and parochialism” (Hu et al., 84) but the article itself does not include phrases like “approaching the role of a source” or “approaching the role of a sink.” Here, I am not criticizing the position of the Communication discipline; I am merely attempting to analyze the authors’ choice of wording. In other words, if the article states that “the Communication discipline is not an inward-looking discipline,” this should have been demonstrated more convincingly.
One of the shortcomings of this article is that it focuses solely on citation rates. What I mean is that citation rates are, of course, a valid method and, as noted in the article, are frequently used; however, perhaps by narrowing the time frame and expanding the database (for example, by including Scopus instead of relying solely on WoS, or by including non-indexed journals— if the issue is methodological, a solution could certainly be found), the keywords in the Abstract section could also have been analyzed. This would have added depth to the question of whether Communication is an inward-looking or outward-looking discipline. By “objectivity” here, I mean that incorporating journals from different databases and subjecting their Abstract sections to content analysis enhances our ability to see the bigger picture. The importance of the Abstract section here lies in word diversity. This allows us to determine the extent to which the Communication discipline prefers terms from its own field and the extent to which it incorporates terms from other disciplines.
A similar study on this topic was conducted by Huang and Xu in 2026. The reason I cite this article is that it covers a broader time span (1976–2022), examines a high volume of publications (52,294), and does not limit itself to citation analysis but also incorporates article titles and abstracts into the research scope (Huang and Xu, 1). These components were subjected to linguistic analysis. The study, which focuses on two forms of innovation in the field of communication—consolidation and disruption—defines “disruption innovation” as research that overshadows the articles it cites and reduces the likelihood of those articles being cited in subsequent studies, and “consolidation innovation” as research that “builds upon the articles it cites” and increases the likelihood of those articles being cited in subsequent studies (Huang and Xu, 1). Their research indicates that the level of disruption in the field of communication is gradually decreasing. This should not be interpreted as a negative outcome. According to the authors, this situation “indicates that communication science is solidifying its status as a more independent discipline based on an increasingly expansive shared intellectual heritage (…)” (Huang and Xu, 1). This judgment strikes me as more profound for the reasons I mentioned above. As I mentioned, this does not render Hu et al.’s article worthless; rather, it highlights the relationships it establishes with other disciplines. However, if the issue is to discuss the autonomy and independence of the Communication discipline, analyzing the high volume of articles—based on diversity—by examining all their components rather than just citations could facilitate a more in-depth analysis.
In short, while the comprehensive analysis provided by Hu et. al in this article offers strong and critical insights in many ways and provides valuable commentary on the field of Communication, it is not without its shortcomings. Epistemological, ontological and methodological gaps made me question some issues while reading this article: if they are using so much numerical data, why do they resort to vague statements? If they place such importance on the autonomy of the Communication discipline, why do they limit their analysis to a single database? As this article contains problematic aspects from epistemological, ontological, and methodological perspectives, I felt the need to compare it with other articles and drew on the work of Huang and Xu (2024). The article I used provided a more in-depth analysis and left me more satisfied than the one I’m currently finishing my response paper on. The goal, of course, is not to write a better article. But if the autonomy of the Communication discipline and its capacity to influence other sciences are so crucial to this article, a broader perspective should have been adopted.
As I mentioned earlier, the article’s contribution to interdisciplinary research is critical. This contribution paves the way for broader and more comprehensive studies. I would like to conclude by offering a suggestion for future research. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020 and lasted approximately two years—though its effects are still being felt—may have led to the increased use of concepts and discussions rooted in the field of communication within other disciplines, as communication channels began to be utilized more effectively than ever before. An article written within a broader framework—covering the period from 2020 to 2025 and incorporating not only citations but also titles and abstracts into the analysis—will be of critical importance in illustrating the state of the field over the past 5–6 years.
REFERENCES
Hu, Jiaying, vd. “Is Communication a Dependent or Involuted Discipline? A Citation Analysis of Communication Publications from 2010 to 2020”. Journal of Communication, c. 74, sy 1, Şubat 2024, ss. 77-87. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad039.
Huang, Luling, ve Kun Xu. “The Field of Communication Is Becoming Less Disruptive: Analyses of Citation Data over Four Decades”. Annals of the International Communication Association, Mart 2026, ss. 1-15. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1093/anncom/wlag008.