Scientometrics

, Volume 9, Issue 1–2, pp 13–25 | Cite as

Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research

  • S. M. Lawani
Article
Received:

Abstract

The following kinds of data were collected on three samples of cancer research literature representing three levels of quality: (1) collaboration as measured by the number of authors per paper, (2) quantitative productivity of countries, (3) diachronous citations covering the first five years of publication, (4) total self-citations, (5) proportions of self-citations made by first-named authors, and (6) the extent of dispersion of articles among journals. Analyses showed that as the number of authors per paper increases, the proportion of high quality papers also increases and the Collaborative Index can be used to measure quality in the aggregate. It was found that the quantity and quality of cancer research done in a country are positively related. All analyses of the citation data confirmed the hypotheses that highly rated papers are significantly more highly cited than average papers and the rates of uncitedness decline with quality. The proportion of self-citations to total citations decreases with increasing quality and, on average, first-named authors of quality papers cite them proportionally fewer times than first-named authors of run-of-the mill papers do. This study also shows that, as quality increases, the extent of literature scatter or dispersion increases.

Keywords

Cancer Research Research Literature Mill Paper Citation Data Average Paper 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. C. LA FOLLETTE (Ed.),Quality in Science, Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. MAZLISH, The quality of ‘the quality of science’: An evaluation,In: M. C. LA FOLLETTE (Ed.),Quality in Science, Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1982, p. 48–67.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. J. GILVARRY, H. K. IHRIG, Group effort in modern physics,Science, 129 (1959) 1277.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. DE SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, New York, Columbia University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B.L. CLARKE, Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers,Science, 143 (1964) 822.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. J. MEADOWS,Communication in Science, London, Butterworths, 1974.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. deB BEAVER, R. ROSEN, Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. deB BEAVER, R. ROSEN, Studies in scientific collaboration. Part II. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French Scientific Elite, 1799–1830,Scientometrics, 1 (1979) 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. deB BEAVER, R. ROSEN, Studies in scientific collaboration. Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship.Scientometrics, 1 (1979) 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. M. LAWANI, On the relationship between quantity and quality of a country's research productivity,Journal of Information Science, 5 (4) (1982) 143.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. E. BAYER, J. FOLGER, Some correlates of a citation measure of productivity in science,Sociology of Education, 39 (1966) 381.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. GARFIELD, Citation indexing for studying science,Nature (London), 227 (1970) 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. M. LAWANI, Citation analysis and the quality of scientific productivity,Bioscience, 27(1) (1977) 26.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. M. LAWANI, A. E. BAYER, Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications: new evidence with peer assessment,Journal of the American Society for Information Science 34 (1) (1983) 59.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. A. VIRGO, A statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers,Library Quarterly, 47 (1977) 415.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. M. LAWANI, On the heterogeneity and classification of author self-citations,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33 (5) (1982) 281.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. DENNIS, Bibliographies of eminent scientists,Scientific Monthly, 79 (1954) 180.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. A. ZUCKERMAN, Nobel laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration and authorship,American Sociological Review, 32 (1967) 391.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. CRANDALL, The relationship between quantity and quality of publications,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4 (1978) 379.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Lawani
    • 1
  1. 1.International Institute of Tropical AgricultureIbadan(Nigeria)

Personalised recommendations