Scientometrics

, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Scientometrics of big science: a case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

Article

Abstract

Large-scale scientific projects have become a major impetus of scientific advances. But few studies have specifically analyzed how those projects bolster scientific research. We address this question from a scientometrics perspective. By analyzing the bibliographic records of papers relevant to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), we found that the SDSS helped scientists from many countries further develop their own research; investigators initially formed large research groups to tackle key problems, while later papers involved fewer authors; and the number of research topics increased but the diversity of topics remains stable. Furthermore, the entropy analysis method has proven valuable in terms of analyzing patterns of research topics at a macroscopic level.

Keywords

Bibliometric Entropy analysis Publication analysis Sloan Digital Sky Survey Large-scale scientific project 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special thanks go to the two reviewers, Helmut Abt and Virginia Trimble, who offered many great suggestions and insights to this study. This study is supported by the NSF under grant # IIS-0612129. Thanks also to Thomson ISI for providing the bibliometric data. Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.

References

  1. Abt, H. A. (1981). Some trends in American astronomical publications. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 553, 269–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abt, H. A. (1990). Trends toward internationalization in astronomical literature. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 102, 368–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abt, H. A. (1994). The current burst in astronomical publications. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 106, 1015–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abt, H. A. (2000). Astronomical publication in the near future. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 112, 1417–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abt, H. A. (2007). The frequency of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu, A., & Lewison, G. (2005). Going beyond journal classification for evaluation of research outputs—A case study of global astronomy and astrophysics research. ASLIB Proceedings, 57(3), 232–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory (99th ed.). New York: Wiley.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernandez, J. A. (1998). The transition from an individual science to a collective one: The case of astronomer. Scientometrics, 42, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garfield, E., Pudovkin, A. I., & Istomin, V. S. (2003). Why do we need algorithmic historiography? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gray, J., Liu, D. T., Santisteban, M. N., Szalay, A. S., DeWitt, D., & Heber, G. (2005). Scientific data management in the coming decade. Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-10. Redmond, WA. http://research.microsoft.com/~Gray/. Accessed 27 May 2007.
  12. Grupp, H. (1990). The concept of entropy in scientometrics and innovation research. Scientometrics, 18, 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2005). Metaphors and diaphors in science communication. Science Communication, 27(1), 64–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2006). Measuring the meaning of words in contexts: An automated analysis of controversies about ‘Monarch butterflies’, ‘Frankenfoods’, and ‘stem cells’. Scientometircs, 67(2), 231–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Purvis, A., & Hector, A. (2000). Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature, 405, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schilling, G. (2001). The virtual observatory moves closer to reality. Science, 289(5477), 238, July 14.Google Scholar
  17. Schmidt, M., Glaser, J., Havemann, F., & Hewz, M. (2006). A methodological study for measuring the diversity of science. In Proceedings International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh COLLNET Meeting (pp. 129–137), Nancy, France.Google Scholar
  18. Small, H. (2004). Why authors think their papers are highly cited. Scientometrics, 60(3), 305–316.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Swanson, D. R., Smalheiser, N. R., & Torvik, V. I. (2006). Ranking indirect connections in literature-based discovery: The role of medical subject headings. Journal of American Society of Information Science and Technology, 57(11), 1427–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Szalay, A. S. (2001). The national virtual observatory. In F. R. Harnden, F. A. Primini, Jr., & H. E. Payne (Eds.), Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X ASP Conference Series, 238, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
  21. Szalay, A. S., Kunszt, P., Thakar, A., Gray, J., Slutz, D., & Bruner, R. J. (2000). Designing and mining multi-terabyte astronomy archives: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD, Austin, TX, May 2000.Google Scholar
  22. Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C. D., & Singer, Y. (2003). Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL) (pp. 252–259), Edmonton, Canada, May 2003.Google Scholar
  23. Toutanova, K., & Manning, C. D. (2000). Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy part-of-speech tagger. In Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora (EMNLP/VLC-2000) (pp. 63–70), Hong Kong, China, October 2000.Google Scholar
  24. White, S. D. M. (2007). Fundamentalist physics: Why Dark Energy is bad for astronomy. Reports on Progress in Physics, 70, 883–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., Anderson, S. F., Annis, J., Bahcall, N. A., et al. (2000). The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical summary. The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1579–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Science and TechnologyDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations