Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 97–113 | Cite as

Measurement of social stratification. A contribution to the dispute on the ORTEGA hypothesis

  • Hildrun Kretschmer
Invited Papers

Abstract

Some discussion papers about the ORTEGA hypothesis were published inScientometrics. One aspect of these discussions was the necessity for the future extension of empirical research to gain a better foundation for the acceptance or refutation of the Ortega hypothesis which states that the research done by average scientists substantially contributes to the advance of science. In this direction an empirical study about the stratification in coauthorship networks is represented in this paper. It was tested whether the extent of stratification decreases with the increasing number of coauthors per paper.

Keywords

Stratification Empirical Study Empirical Research Discussion Paper Good Foundation 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts, Testing the Ortega hypothesis: Facts and artifacts,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 293–296.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.B. Line, The shoulders of giants, or the backs of mice?Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 297–298.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.J. Moravcsik, We must ask questions before giving answers,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 299–302.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V.V. Nalimov, Scientists are not acrobats,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 303–304.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Leydesdorff,Towards a theory of citation?Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 305–310.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W.E. Snizek, In search of influence: The testing of the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 311–314.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.J. Meadows, Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 315–316.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Oromaner,Ortega, obliteration and policy consequences,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 317–320.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.M. Lawani, The Ortega hypothesis, individual differences, and cumulative advantage,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 321–324.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.J. Nederhof, A.F.J. van Raan, Citation theory and the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 325–328.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Zuckerman, Citation analysis and the complex problem of intellectual influence,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 329–338.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Small, The significance of bibliographic references,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 339–342.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Narin, To believe or not to believe,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 343–344.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Cole, J.R. Cole, Testing the Ortega hypothesis: Millestone or millstone?Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 345–354.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Green, A test of the Ortega hypothesis in criminology,Criminology, 19 (1981) 45.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Oromaner, The Ortega hypothesis and influential articles in American Sociology,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Cole, S. Cole, The Ortega hypothesis,Science, 178 (1972) 368.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W.E. Snizek, A re-examination of the Ortega hypothesis: The Dutch case,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Kretschmer, R. Müller, A contribution to the dispute on the Ortega hypothesis: Connection between publication rate and stratification of scientists, tested by various methods.Scientometrics, 18 (1990) 43–56.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P.R. Hofstätter,Gruppendynamik, Rowohlt, Hamburg, 1957.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Kretschmer, Social stratification of authors revealed from the coauthorship network. In:Informetrics 89/90 — Selection of Papers Submitted for the 2nd International Conference on Bibliometrics, Scientometrics and Informetrics, London, Ontario, Canada, July 5–7 1989,L. Egghe, R. Roussaeu, (Eds) Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, Tokyo, 1990, p. 193–200.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. Noma, An improved method for analyzing square scientometric transaction matrices,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    H.-J. Czerwon,Bibliography (1980–1985). Quantized Hall Effect, Scientific Information Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the GDR, Berlin 1987.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Schubert, O. Toma,Quantitative Studies of Science. A Selected Bibliography (1980–1984). Department for Scientometrics, Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. Glänzel,Bibliography (1982–1985). Endoxan. Department for Scientometrics.Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    H.-J. Czerwon,Bibliography (1979–1984). Monte-Carlo Simulations in Lattice Field Theories, Scientific Information Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the GDR, Berlin 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hildrun Kretschmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Hohen NeuendorfGermany

Personalised recommendations