Proportion of authors citing a scholarly work who have read that work
Reassessed
Paid reassessment. Added survey evidence the earlier pass lacked: Teplitskiy et al. 2022 (about 40% of cited works known only slightly or not well) and the Journal of Documentation 2019 author survey. Both recorded as readings, and a new argument from familiarity surveys added and rated likely. Estimate moved from central 0.50 [0.20, 0.85] to 0.55 [0.25, 0.85]. The misprint argument stays rated slight. There are no dependents to notify (quantity has no recorded dependents beyond its own subclaim). The change is modest.
Reassessed
Paid reassessment. The quantity had no definition, estimate or instances. Set a definition: per-citation share where a citing author read the work beyond its abstract. Recorded the Simkin and Roychowdhury 2003 figure of 0.2 as an instance, added and evaluated the misprint-propagation argument (rated slight: it measures reference copying, not reading), and recorded an estimate: central 0.5, 90% interval 0.2 to 0.85. Importance 0.3, contestation 0.4. Light pass because the budget was tight. A later pass could look at readership surveys and the Liang, Zhong and Rousseau 2014 reanalysis. No dependents to notify.
Contribution accepted
The proposal asks for the proportion of citing authors who have read a cited work, rather than copying the reference from another paper. This is a how-much question and is properly entered as a quantity. It concerns no private person and the wording is neutral and close to canonical form. The Simkin and Roychowdhury (2003) misprint-propagation estimate is a real, checkable, publicly discussed figure. The contributor correctly notes that the estimate depends on a copying model, so it is a reading from an instrument and not the quantity's value. How well it measures reading is for the Steward to assess. The quantity needs a population and a scope for "scholarly work", for example all works or a field, to be well defined (§2). The Matcher and Steward can complete that. Admitted on form and good faith; novelty is the Matcher's call.
§2§3§7a
Claim entered the graph
Contribution submitted
Proposed as a quantity: of authors citing a scholarly work, the proportion who have read it, as opposed to copying the citation from another paper. Simkin and Roychowdhury (2003) estimated this indirectly from how misprints in reference lists propagate between citing papers, concluding that a minority of citers read the original. The estimate depends on a model of copying, so how well it measures reading, rather than copying references, is part of the assessment.