Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Citations and scientific progress: Comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This project compares various bibliometric measures and scientists' own judgments. Publication and cittion data are compiled for two cohorts of chemists awarded Sloan Fellowships. Citation patterns differ substantially between most cited papers and those these authors identify as their “best.” Theoretical, empirical, and methodological papers are contrasted as well. In addition, temporal citation patterns show that recognition spreads beyond the research area of a particular paper to yield “cross-disciplinary” citation surprisingly rapidly. Results suggest the utility of studying citation patterns among the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, but also caution against equating publication and citation counts with scientific progress.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. LEDERBERG, “Foreward”,Contemporary Classics in the Life Sciences, Vol. 1: Cell Biology, Philadelphia, ISI Press, 1986, pp vii-ix.

    Google Scholar 

  2. E. GARFIELD, Citation data is subtle stuff,The Scientist, (April 6, 1987), 9.

  3. F. NARIN,Evaluative Bibliometrics, Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons Inc., 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. IRVINE, B. R. MARTIN,Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners, Dover, NH: Frances Pinter, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. CALLON, J. LAW, A. RIP, (Eds),Qualitative Bibliometrics, Macmillan, 1986.

  6. S. E. COZZENS, (Ed.), Theme section: Funding and knowledge growth,Social Studies of Science, 16 (February 1986).

  7. Office of Technology Assessment,Research as an Investment: Can We Measure the Returns? A Technical Memorandum, Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1986.

  8. J. J. FRANKLIN, R. JOHNSTON, “Co-citation bibliometric modeling as a tool for S&T policy and R&D management: Issues, applications, and developments, in: F. J. VAN RANN (Ed.),Handbook of the Quantitative Study of Science and Technology, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, M. E. BOECKMANN, Career patterns of scientists: A case for complementary data,American Sociological Review, 46 (1981) 488.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, F. A. ROSSINI, T. CONNOLLY,Indicators of Interdisciplinary Research, Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, 1983.

  11. D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, F. A. ROSSINI, Citation classics' analysis: An approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research,JASIS 35 (November 1984) p. 360.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. L. PORTER, D. E. CHUBIN, M. E. BOECKMANN, T. CONNOLLY, F. A. ROSSINI,A Cross-Disciplinary Assessment of the Role of the Doctoral Dissertation in Career Development, Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology, Final Report to NSF, Science Resources Studies (Grant SRS78-18959), 1981.

  13. A. L. PORTER, F. A. ROSSINI, D. E. CHUBIN,Inderdisciplinary Research (Problem-focussed, Multi-skilled Research)—National Science Foundation Experiences, Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology, Final Report to NSF, Office of Interdisciplinary Research (Grant OIR-8209893), 1984.

  14. E. GARFIELD, Journal Citation Studies 46. Physical Chemistry and Chemical Physics Journals, Part 1, Historical Background and Global Maps,Current Contents, (January 6, 1986a), p. 3.

  15. E. GARFIELD, Part 2, Core journals and most-cited papers,Current Contents, (January 13, 1986b), p. 3.

  16. E. GARFIELD, Part 3, The evolution of Physical Chemistry to Chemical Physics,Current Contents, (January 20, 1986c), p. 3.

  17. S. M. LAWANI, A. E. BAYER, Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications; New evidence with peer assessment,JASIS 34 (1983), p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. S. AVERSA, Citation patterns of highly cited papers and their relationship to literature aging: A study of the working literature,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. P. VINKLER, Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications,Scientometrics, 10 (1986) 157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, Measuring Scientific Output: A Collective Biography Approach, Interim Report on NSF Grant No. PRA 84-13060, Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology, February 1985.

  21. D. E. CHUBIN, F. A. ROSSINNI, A. L. PORTER, T. CONNOLLY, (Eds) Interdisciplinary Analysis and Research, Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Institute for Scientific Information,Journal Citation Report, 1983, p. 99.

  23. F. A. ROSSINI, A. L. PORTER, D. E. CHUBIN, T. CONNOLLY, Crossdisciplinarity in the Biomedical Sciences: A preliminary analysis of Anatomy, in:Managing Interdisciplinary Research, S. R. EPTON, R. L. PAYNE, A. W. PEARSON (Eds), Wiley, Chichester, England, 1984, pp. 176–184.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 30332, Atlanta, Georgia, (USA)

    A. L. Porter

  2. Office of Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress, (USA)

    D. E. Chubin

  3. Shanghai Institute of Ceramics, Shanghai, (China)

    Xiao-Yin Jin

Authors
  1. A. L. Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. E. Chubin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiao-Yin Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Porter, A.L., Chubin, D.E. & Jin, XY. Citations and scientific progress: Comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments. Scientometrics 13, 103–124 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017178

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017178

Keywords

Search

Navigation