, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp 179–194 | Cite as

Mathematics 1868–2008: a bibliometric analysis

  • Heinrich Behrens
  • Peter LukschEmail author


This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of the literature published in the field of mathematics from 1868 to date. The data originate from the Zentralblatt MATH database. The increase rate of publications per year reflects the growth of the mathematics community and both can well be represented by exponential or linear functions, the latter especially after the Second World War. The distribution of publications follows Bradford′s law but in contrast to many other disciplines there is no strong domination of a small number of journals. The productivity of authors follows two inverse power laws of the Lotka form with different parameters, one in the range of low productivity and the other in the range of high productivity. The average productivity has changed only slightly since the year 1870. As far as multiple authorship is concerned the distribution of the number of authors per publication can be described quite well by a Gamma Distribution. The average number of authors per publication has been increasing steadily; while it was close to 1 up to the first quarter of the last century it has now reached a value of 2 in the last few years. This means that the percentage of single-authored papers has fallen from over 95% in the years before 1930 to about 30% today.


Doubling Time Multiple Authorship Yearly Paper Exponential Growth Model Small Correction Factor 
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.


  1. Abt, H. A. (2007a). The publication rate of scientific papers depends only on the number of scientists. Scientometrics, 73, 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abt, H. A. (2007b). The future of single-authored papers. Scientometrics, 73, 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajiferuke, I., Burrell, Q. L., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14(5–6), 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailón-Moreno, R., Jurado-Almeda, E., Ruiz-Banos, R., & Courtial, J. P. (2005). Bibliometric laws: Empirical flaws of fit. Scientometrics, 63, 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barth, A., & Marx, W. (2008). Mapping high temperature superconductors—a scientometric approach. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism, 21, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behrens, H., & Genz, H. (2008). Von den ersten Periodika zur Paper-Flut. Physik Journal, 7, 28–31.Google Scholar
  7. Behrens, H., & Lankenau, I. (2006). Wissenschaftswachstum in wichtigen naturwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen vom 17. Bis zum 21. Jahrhundert. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 29, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Behrens, H., & Luksch, P. (2006). A bibliometric study in crystallography. Acta Crystallographica B, 62, 993–1001.Google Scholar
  9. Bookstein, A. (1990). Informetric distributions, part I: Unified overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85–86.Google Scholar
  11. Furner, J. (2003). Little book, big book: Before and after little science, big science: A review article, Part I and II. Journal of Librarianship and Information, 35, 115–125. (189–201).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glänzel, W. (2002). Co-authorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998), a bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461–473.Google Scholar
  13. Leimkühler, F. F. (1967). The Bradford distribution. Journal of Documentation, 23, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–323.Google Scholar
  15. May, K. O. (1966). Quantitative growth of the mathematical literature. Science, 154, 1672–1673.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Perline, R. (2005). Strong, weak, and false inverse power laws. Statistical Science, 20, 68–88.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Person, O., Glänzel, W., & Daniel, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60, 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Price, D. J. D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Price, D. D., & Gürsey, S. (1976). Studies in scientometrics. Part 1. Transience and continuance in scientific authorship. International Forum on Information, and Documentation, 1(2), 17–24.Google Scholar
  20. Rao, I. K. R. (1995). A stochastic approach to analysis of distribution of papers in mathematics: Lotka’s law revisited. In M. Koenig & A. Bookstein (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, pp. 455–464.Google Scholar
  21. Reed, W. J. (2001). The Pareto, Zipf and other power laws. Economics Letters, 74, 15–19.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rousseau, R. (1994). Bradford curves. Information Processing and Management, 30(2), 267–277.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Saxena, A., Gupta, B. M., & Jauhari, M. (2001). Forecasting growth of literature: All models are wrong, some are useful. In M. Davis & C. S. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Sydney Australia, pp. 647–653.Google Scholar
  24. Wagner-Döbler, R. (1995). Where has the cumulative advantage gone? Some observations about the frequency distribution of scientific productivity, of duration of scientific participation, and of speed of publication. Scientometrics, 32, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wagner-Döbler, R. (1996). Two components of a casual explanation of Bradford′s law. Journal of Information Science, 22, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wagner-Döbler, R. (1997a). Science-technology coupling: The case of mathematical logic and computer science. Journal of the American Association for Information Science, 48, 171–183.Google Scholar
  27. Wagner-Döbler, R. (1997b). Wachstumszyklen technisch-wissenschaftlicher Kreativität. Eine quantitative Studie unter besonderer Beachtung der Mathematik. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Wagner-Döbler, R., & Berg, J. (1995). The dependence of Lotka′s Law on the selection of time periods in the development of scientific areas and authors. Journal of Documentation, 51, 28–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wagner-Döbler, R., & Berg, J. (1996). Nineteenth-century mathematics in the mirror of its literature. A quantitative approach. Historia Mathematica, 23, 288–318.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.StutenseeGermany
  2. 2.FIZ KarlsruheEggenstein-LeopoldshafenGermany

Personalised recommendations