Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific fields and eminent scientists' productivity patterns and factors

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A questionnaire study of 385 eminent Croatian scientists has examined the quantity, patterns and factors of their scientific production in four different scientific fields. The findings confirm the thesis that the contextual influences will be even more expressed within this elite group than within the whole research population. Thus the respondents' scientific productivity much clearly shows the patterns typical for their scientific fields. The initial thesis is also supported by a very differentiated composition and the explanatory power of the productivity predictors in the observed fields. Yet, the scientific and linguistic qualifications, within a narrower predictors' block, and the involvement in the international scientific activity, in a broader one, were the most important productivity factors in most fields.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and notes

  1. T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, World Flash on Basic Research. National publication patterns and citation impact in the multidisciplinary journalsNature andScience, Scientometrics, 17 (1989) 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Schubert, T. Braun, Three scientometric etudes on developing countries as a tribute to Michael Moravcsik,Scientometrics, 23 (1992) 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Bonitz, E. Bruckner, A. Scharnhorst, The Science Strategy Index,Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Lewison, A. Fawcett-Jones, C. Kessler, Latin American scientific output 1986–91 and international co-authorship patterns,Scientometrics, 27 (1993) 317–336.

    Google Scholar 

  5. T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert WorldFlash on Basic Research. Some data on distribution of journal publication types in the Science Citation Index Database.Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 325–330.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Irvine, B. R. Martin, International comparisons of scientific performance revisited,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 369–392.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Arunachalam, K. Manorama, Are citation-based techniques adequate for measuring science on the periphery?Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 393–408.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. Eto, Science revolution and Ortega Hypothesis in developing countries,Scientometrics, 20 (1991) 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Pestaña, Spanish performance in life sciences. A comparative appraisal of the scientific production of Spain and five other European countries in 1989,Scientometrics, 24 (1992) 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  10. W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, World Flash on Basic Research. Some facts and figures on highly cited papers in the sciences, 1981–1985,Scientometrics, 25 (1992) 373–380.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Leclerc, J. Gagné, International scientific cooperation: The continentalization of science,Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 261–292.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. F. Miquel, Y. Okubo, Structure of international collaboration in science — Part II: Comparisons of profiles in countries using a LINK indicator,Scientometrics, 29 (1994) 271–297.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. Arunachalam, R. Srinivasan, V. Raman, International collaboration in science: participation by Asian giants,Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. F. Miquel, T. Ojasoo, Y. Okubo, A. Paul, J. C. Doré, World science in 18 disciplinary areas: Comparative evaluation of the publication patterns of 48 countries over the period 1981–1992.Scientometrics, 33 (1995) 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Whitley, The sociology of scientific work and the history of scientific developments, in:S. S. Blume (Ed.),Perspectives in the Sociology of Science, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester/New York/Brisbane/Toronto, 1977, pp. 21–50.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Whitley, The context of scientific investigation, in:K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn, R. Whitley (Eds),The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1981, pp. 297–321.

    Google Scholar 

  17. R. Whitley,The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Clerendon Press, Oxford, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Fuchs,The Professional Quest for Truth. A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  19. S. Fuchs, A sociological theory of scientific change,Social Forces, 71 (1993) 933–953.

    Google Scholar 

  20. T. S. Kuhn,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. D. Allison, J. A. Stewart, Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage,American Sociological Review, 39 (1974) 596–606.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Cole, Age and scientific performance,American Journal of Sociology, 84 (1979) 958–977.

    Google Scholar 

  23. P. D. Allison, Inequality and scientific productivity,Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. Lindsey, Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship,Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  25. P. E. Stephan, S. G. Levin, Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact,Social Studies of Science, 21 (1991) 351–368.

    Google Scholar 

  26. H. A. Abt, Publication practices in various sciences,Scientometrics, 24 (1992) 441–447.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. J. Nederhof, R. A. Zwaan, R. E. De Bruin, P. J. Dekker, Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for humanities and social and behavioural sciences: A comparative study.Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 423–435.

    Google Scholar 

  28. S. Kyvik, Productivity differences, fields of learning, and Lotka's law,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  29. I. Lodahl, G. Gordon, The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments,American Sociological Review, 37 (1972) 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  30. S. Cole,Making Science: Between Nature and Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA./London, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  31. S. Hemlin, Scientific quality in the eyes of the scientists. A questionnaire study,Scientometrics, 27 (1993) 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  32. S. Hemlin, H. Montgomery, Peer judgements of scientific quality: A cross-disciplinary document analysis of professorship candidates,Science Studies, 6 (1993) 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  33. L. L. Hargens, L. Kelly-Wilson, Determinants of disciplinary discontent,Social Forces, 72 (1994) 1177–1195.

    Google Scholar 

  34. K. Prpić, The socio-cognitive frameworks of scientific productivity,Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 293–311.

    Google Scholar 

  35. K. Prpić, Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity,Scientometrics; 36 (1996) 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  36. F. Maletić (Ed.),Tko je tko u Hrvatskoj = Who is Who in Croatia, Golden marketing, Zagreb, 1993.

  37. In the narrower predictor block there were the following variables: gender, age, father's education, the average grade at the university, research other than study obligations, publications during university studies, career continuity, the age on obtaining the Ph.D. and on obtaining the highest present rank, active and passive knowledge of foreign languages, the number of domestic projects in which the respondents participated and the number of those which they led, the number of international projects in which they participated and the number of those which they led, the number of domestic coworkers, and the executive position at the scientific institution. In a broader predictors' block, the following predictors were added to the listed variables: membership in national and international editorial boards; the frequency of reviewing domestic colleagues' papers but also those by foreign colleagues; the number of supervised M.A. theses but also those of the Ph.D. candidates; memberships in committees for Master's theses and Doctoral dissertations; memberships in national and international scientific societies and in their committees.

  38. The respondents who mostly deal with the basic research and those who deal with mixed research activities have published, on average, 77.9 or 75.2 scientific works, as opposed to the colleagues who mostly work on applied and developmental research and have 52.7 scientific publications (F-ratio=9.40; F signif=0.0001). The largest number of professional publications, 70.4 on average, are from the respondents who work on mixed research activities. Those who mostly deal with applied and developmental research have published, on average, 53 professional papers. Basic research results in only 30 professional publications during the whole of the respondent's career (F-ratio=12.06; F signif=0.0000).

  39. The eminent researchers who have come into a scientific/research institution from a non-scientific one, have published, on average, 58.3 scientific papers during their whole career, while the respondents with a continuous scientific career have had, on average, 75.2 scientific publications (F-ratio=9.5710; F signif=0.0021). The differences in the total number of the professional publications are not significant, although the former group has, on average, ten publications more than the latter. (56.0 to 46.5)

  40. D. K. Simonton, Multiples, chance, genius, creativity, and zeitgeist, in:D. N. Jackson &J. P. Rushton (Eds),Scientific Excellence: Origins and Assessment, Sage, Newbury Park/Beverly Hills/London/New Delhi, 1987, pp. 98–128.

    Google Scholar 

  41. A small problem at coming to conclusions are the life sciences in which in 1990 an almost identical average number of solo- and co-authored publications was found. These sciences have now been joined with the medical ones into the life science area. A larger problem is the social sciences and the humanities in which in 1990, a different share of co-authored publications was obtained (1/4 to 1/10). Even if the publications by the respondents from the humanities have a certain influence on the average of the whole group, it is not probable that they can significantly distort the pattern.

  42. T. Luukkonen, Is scientists' publishing behaviour reward-seeking?,Scientometrics, 24 (1992) 297–319.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Beta weights=0.3525 and −0.2280; multiple R=0.4175; R square=0.1743; F-ratio=8.6549; F signif=0.0004.

  44. Beta weights=−0.3498 and −0.2262; multiple R=0.4164; R square=0.1734; F-ratio=7.4482; F signif=0.0012.

  45. Beta weights=0.2212 and 0.2051; multiple R=0.3009; R square=0.0905; F-ratio=5.8726; F signif=0.0037.

  46. In the natural sciences, which is not surprising, non of the variables from the predictor block explains even a small percentage of the variance. The only predictor of the solo-authored publications in the technical sciences is the (male) gender (multiple R=0.3061; R square=0.0937; F-ratio=7.4433; F signif=0.0080). In bio-sciences the production of these publications is explained by leader's roles in domestic projects (multiple R=0.2411; R square=0.0581; F-ratio=7.3433; F signif=0.0077). The only factor of solo-authored publication quantity in the social sciences and the humanities is younger age at obtaining the highest rank (multiple R=0.2040; R square=0.0416; F=4.4721; F signif=0.0369).

  47. None of the variables of the predictor block participates significantly in the explanation of the co-authored scientists' papers in the field of the social sciences and the humanities. In the natural sciences this type of publications is predicted by a number of foreign projects and a younger age on appointment into the highest rank (beta weights=0.3456 and −0.2209; multiple R=0.4079; R square=0.1664; F-ratio=8.1829; F signif=0.0006). In the technical sciences, the factors of the co-authored papers production are a younger age on promotion into the highest rank and lower father's education (beta weights=−0.3562 and −0.2173; multiple R=0.4171; R square=0.1740; F-ratio=7.4771; F signif=0.0011). A younger age on appointment into the highest rank is the only important predictor of the co-authored publications in the bio-sciences (multiple R=0.2769; R square=0.0767; F-ratio=9.8849; F signif=0.0021).

  48. S. Hemlin, Research production in the arts and humanities. A questionnaire study. Paper presented to the workshop “Studies on the Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences” at the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 30 May, 1995.

  49. R. D. Whitley, The sociology of scientific work and the history of scientific developments, in:S. S. Blume (Ed.),Perspectives in the Sociology of Science, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester/New York/Brisbane/Toronto, 1977, pp. 21–50.

    Google Scholar 

  50. B. Klaic, Analysis of the scientific productivity of researchers from the Republic of Croatia for the period 1990–1992,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 133–151.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ž. Šporer, Karakteristike socioloških radova (Characteristics of Sociological Works),Revija za sociologiju (Sociological Review) 21 (1990) 437–454.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Z. Dukic, Mjesto sociologije u sistemu znanosti (The Position of Sociology in the System of Science),Revija za sociologiju (Sociological Review) 21, (1990) 455–465.

    Google Scholar 

  53. J. Laznjak, Znanstvena usmjerenost i opremljenost doktorata iz sociologije (Scientific Characteristics of Doctoral Dissertations in Sociology),Revija za sociologiju (Sociological Review) 21 (1990) 467–475.

    Google Scholar 

  54. A. Stulhofer, T. Murati, Kakvu nam je sociologiju zeljeti: budućnost naše profesije kako je sami vidimo (The Future of Croatian Sociology),Revija za sociologiju (Sociological Review) 24 (1993) 203–212.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Research Zagreb, Amruseva 11, 10000, Zagreb, (Croatia)

    Katarina Prpić

Authors
  1. Katarina Prpić
    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

Prpić, K. Scientific fields and eminent scientists' productivity patterns and factors. Scientometrics 37, 445–471 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019258

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019258

Keywords

Search

Navigation