Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 3–34 | Cite as

On fundamental regularities of the distribution of scientific productivity

  • A. I. Yablonsky
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a methodologicl and mathematical study of the main regularities related to the distribution of scientific productivity. An analysis of the se regularities is given from the point of view of two approaches, the frequency and the rank approaches, to the problem of scientific productivity. The connection between these approaches is studied and a number of mathematical formulas that are both of theoretical significance for the understanding of information data basis formation mechanisms and of practical one, in particular, for the estimate of Bradford's law parameters, are deduced. The relation between the scientific productivity distributions under consideration and the stable non-Gaussian distributions is analyzed. The formation of the corresponding regularities of scientific productivity is regarded as a consequence of probability process combined with deterministic one.

Keywords

Data Basis Formation Mechanism Basis Formation Productivity Distribution Scientific Productivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and references

  1. 1.
    J. VLACHÝ, Frequency distributions of scientific performance. A bibliography of Lotka's law and related fenomena,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 109–131.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For the growth statistics see:.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. J. HUBERT, Bibliometric models for journal productivity,Social Indicators Research, 4 (1977) 441–473.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. I. YABLONSKI, Models and Methods of Mathematical Studies of Science (a scientific-analytical review), Moscow, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. MANDELBROT, New methods in statistical economies,Journal of Political Economy, 71 (1963) 421–440.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. J. LOTKA, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity,Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16 (1926) 317–323.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. VLACHÝ, Variable factors in scientific communities (Observations on Lotka's law),Theorie a metoda, Praha, IV/I, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. N. PETROV, G. M. ULANOV, S. V. UL'YANOV, E. M. KHAZEN, Information-Semantic Problems in Organization and Control, Moscow, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. I. YABLONSKY, Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. D. ALLISON, D. de S. PRICE, B. C. GRIFFITH, M. J. MORAVCSIK, J. A. STEWART, Lotka's law: a problem in its interpretation and application,Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976), No. 2, 269–276.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Even if one considers only the scientific output measured, for instance, not by publications but by the number of new ideas, according toCrane's results concerning the spreading of innovations in agriculture (See: D. CRANE,Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago, 1972), the distribution of the number of innovations advanced by various scientists is also governed by Lotka's law. The author of the lawA. J. Lotka who analyzed no only the chemical abstract journal butF. Auerbach's Geschichtstafeln der Physik for 1600–1900 and obtained an agreement between the corresponding distributions of scientific output (as judged by publications and discoveries) noted the same.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. J. YABLONSKY. Models and Methods of Mathematical Studies of Science (a scientific-analytical review), Moscow, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See. A. J. YABLONSKY,op. cit., note 9, Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976, for details of randomization of branching processes.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. I. YABLONSKY, Structure and dynamics of modern science (certain methodological problems). In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1976, Moscow, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. de S. PRICE, Networks of scientific papers,Science, 149 (1965) No. 3683, 510–515.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Dieks, H. Chang, Difference in impact of scientific publications: Some indices derived from a citation analysis,Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976) No. 2.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Note also the sociological studies of the scientific effect that were conducted, for instance, by D.Crane by means of questionnaire distribution among the members of the “invisible college” in one of the problematic fields of rural sociology (the distribution of innovations in agriculture), in order to determine the influence of other scientists on the results of representatives of the given “college” [See: D. CRANE, Social structure in a grop of scientists: a test of the “Invisible College” hypothesis,American Sociological Review, 34 (June 1969) No. 3, 335–352]. Of interest is that the distribution of “influencing” scientists with respect to the number of them being chosen by the examination participants is also governed (qualitatively) by a law similar to that of Lotka: the small number of scientists was given by many participants and vice versa, the basic number of “influencing” scientists was mentioned only once.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Dicks, H. Chang,op cit., note 16. Difference in impact of scientific publications: Some indices derived from a citation analysis,Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976) No. 2.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    e.g. J. R. COLE Patterns of intellectual influence in scientific research,Sociology of Education, 43 (1970) No. 4, 377–403; I. V. MARSHAKOVA prospective connection in the system of scientific publications. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1976, Moscow, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. C. BRADFORD,Documentation, London, 1948.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    An important feature of this case is exactly that the corresponding set of journals should reflect with sufficient completeness the sphere of knowledge under study. “The law of dispersal of papers in the journals is valid only after a certain time interval has elapsed during which the mass of publications pertaining to a given topic will be formed, in other words, on the expiration of time required for the general spread of interest in a given subject”. [A. AVRAMESCU, The modelling of scientific information transfer,Mezhdunarodnyi forum po informatsii i dokumentatsii, 1 (1975) No. 1, 18]. For this reason, by the way, the validity of Bradford's law for a given information data base can serve as an indication of a sufficiently well formed scientific field.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. C. BROOKES, Bradford's law and the bibliography of science,Nature, 224 (1969) No. 5223, 953–956.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. S. DONOHUE,Understanding Scientific Literatures — a Bibliometric Approach. The MIT press, Cambridge (Mass.), London, 1973.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The empirical parameter S equals one for very “narrow” scientific fields and grows with the increase of the range of problems treated in a given field. Therefore, its definition can be used in order to estimate quantitatively the degree of broadness of the discipline under study. For example, A.Pope [see: A. Pope, Bradford's law and the periodical literature of information science.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (1975) No. 4] having analyzed the corresponding bibliographical data bases, arrived at a conclusion that information science (S=2.6) occupies an intermediate position between library science (S=1) and computational science (S=3.4), i.c., the set of its subjects is broader than the former but narrower than the latter which agrees, by the way, also with the intuitive concepts about the broadness of the set of subjects in these three disciplines.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. C. BRADFORD,op. cit., note 21.Documentation, London. 1948.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. A. Wilkinson, The ambiguity of Bradford's law,Journal of Documentation, 28 (1972) No. 2.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Note that such peculiar feature of representing scientific information as its quantization in the form of papers, books, unification of papers into discrete quantization units (journals), etc. exercise informational structure, its stability, the formation of Bradford's law, etc. For instance, it is noted that a peculiar feature of Bradford's law which consists in the presence of a “nucleus” in a collection with its own dynamics of scientific information can be explained by “such specific form of quantization as periodicals” (A. I. MIKHAILOV, A. I. CHERNYI, R. C. GILYAREVSKY,Scientific Communications and Informatics, Moscow, 1976, p. 184). For this reson the “quantum” approach to the study of regularities of the organizing of the information base is of interest, and not only for informatics but for the science of sciences as well, for instance, in connection with the analysis of scienfitic communication. Recent papers of A.Hill et al. [B. HILL, Zipf's law and prior distributions for the composition of a population,Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65 (331) (1970) 1220 B. HILL, Rank frequency forms of Zipf's law,Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69 (348) (1974) 1017; B. HILL, M. WOODROOFE, Stronger forms of Zipf's law,Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70 (349) (1975) 212; M. WOODROOFE, B. HILL, On Zipf's law,Journal of Applied Probability, 12 (1975) 425–434], in which Bose-Einstein statistics (see, e.g., W. FELLER,An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Wiley & Sons, Inc., London, Chapman & Hall Ltd., 1957) is used for derivation of Zipf's law, the ranks and analog of Lotka's law (Bradford's law representing the cumulative form of Zipf's law), provide an interesting example of the application of quantum statistics.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See, e.g., D. CRANE,op. cit., note 11; Even if one considers only the scientific output measured, for instance, not by publications but by the number of new ideas, according toCrane's results concerning the spreading of innovations in agriculture (See: D. CRANE,Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago, 1972), the distribution of the number of innovations advanced by various scientists is also governed by Lotka's law. The author of the lawA. J. Lotka who analyzed no only the chemical abstract journal butF. Auerbach's Geschichtstafeln der Physik for 1600–1900 and obtained an agreement between the corresponding distributions of scientific output (as judged by publications and discoveries) noted the same. A. I. MIKHAILOW et al.,op. cit., note 28.Scientific Communications and Informatics, Moscow, 1976, p. 184).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. CRANE,ibid., Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago, 1972. A. I. MIKHAILOV et al.,op. cit. Scientific Communications and Informatics, Moscow, 1976, p. 213.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    The concept of hierarchic structure as a way of ensuring stability of a complex system under development with the presence of external limitations or the existence of contradictory requirements of centralized and decentralized control is quite widely spread in modern system analysis (see, for example, N. N. MOISEEV, The Mathematician Asks Questions ... Moscow, 1974.).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. J. MIKHAILOV et al.,op. cit., note 28,Scientific Communications and Informatics, Moscow, 1976, p. 66.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. J. YABLONSKY,op. cit., note 9. Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. J. YABLONSKY,ibid. Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    W. FELLER,An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Vol. 2. J. Wiley & Sons, New York—London—Sydney, 1966; B. V. GNEDENKO, A. N. KOLMOGOROV,Limiting Distributions for Sums of Independent Random Variables, Moscow-Leningrad, 1949.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See: A. J. YABLONSKY,op. cit., note 9, Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976. for the analysis of the scientological aspects of this connection.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. G. KENDALL, Natural law in the social sciences,Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 124 (1964) part 1, p. 4.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    See. e.g., B. MANDELBROT,.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. J. YABLONSKY. The development of science as an open system. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1978, Moscow, 1978.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. G. KENDALL, ; G. K. ZIPF,Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort, Cambridge, 1949.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. VLACHÝ,.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yu. K. ORLOV, On the statistical structure of communications optimal for human perception (on the formulation of the question),Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya, Ser. 2, 1970, No. 8.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yu. A. SHREIDER, Complex systems and cosmological principles. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    N. WIENER,I am a Mathematician. Doubleday Book Co., Inc., Garden-City, New York, 1956; A. A. IGNAT'EV, A. I. YABLONSKY, Analytic structures of scientific communication. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976: A. J. YABLONSKY,.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    T. E. HARRIS,The Theory of Branching Processes, Springer-Verlag, Berlin—Gottingen—Heidelberg, 1963.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. T. BHARUCHA-REID,Elements of the Theory of Markov Processes and their Applications, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York—Toronto—London, 1960.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    H. A. SIMON, On a class of skew distribution function,Biometrika, 42 (1955) 425.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    G. X. YULE, A mathematical theory of evolution based on conclusions of dr. J. C. Willis,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 213 (1924) Ser. B, 21–87.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Price [See: D. de S. PRICE, A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes,Journal of the American Society for Informations Science, 27 (1976) No. 5, 292–306] obtained the same distribution on the basis of somewhat different considerations (depending, as well asSimon's approach on finding a stable solution of the finite difference equation for the dynamics of the author) calls it “the cumulative advantage distribution”.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    A. J. YABLONSKY,op. cit., note 9. Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    D. de SOLLAPRICE.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    See, e.g., L. BRILLOUIN,Science and Information Theory, Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1956.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    See, e.g., A. Avramescu, Contribution to the foundation of bibliometric laws,Studii si cercetarii de documentare, 15 (1973) No. 1.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    W. Goffman, K. S. Warren, Dispersion of papers among journals based of a mathematical analysis of two diverse literatures,Nature, 221 (1969) No. 5187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. I. Yablonsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Systems StudiesMoscow(USSR)

Personalised recommendations