, Volume 92, Issue 3, pp 785–793 | Cite as

The Google effect in doctoral theses

  • Lav R. VarshneyEmail author


It is often said that successive generations of researchers face an increasing educational burden due to knowledge accumulation. On the other hand, technological advancement over time can improve the productivity of researchers and even change their cognitive processes. This paper presents a longitudinal study (2004–2011) of citation behavior in doctoral theses at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. It is found that the number of references cited has increased over the years. At the same time, there has been a decrease in the length of time in the doctoral program and a relative constancy in the culture of the department. This suggests that students are more productive in facing an increased knowledge burden, and indeed seem to encode prior literature as transactive memory to a greater extent, as evidenced by the greater use of older literature.


Doctoral theses Citation behavior Knowledge burden 



Discussions with Rachel Cohen and Eric J. Strattman are appreciated.


  1. Acemoglu, D. (2009). Introduction to modern economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60. doi: 10.1287/mnsc. Scholar
  3. Baez, M., Birukou, A., Casati, F., & Marchese, M. (2010). Addressing information overload in the scientific community. IEEE Internet Computing, 14(6), 31–38. doi: 10.1109/MIC.2010.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banker, R. D., Kauffman, R. J., & Zweig, D. (1993). Repository evaluation of software reuse. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 9(4), 379–389. doi: 10.1109/32.223805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century: A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1–52. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. doi: 10.1108/00220410810844150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cawkell, A. E. (1976). Citations, obsolesence, enduring articles, and multiple authorships. Journal of Documentation, 32(1), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conover, W. J. (1972). A Kolmogorov goodness-of-fit test for discontinuous distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67(339), 591–596.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big sience. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ding, W. W., Levin, S. G., Stephan, P. E., & Winkler, A. E. (2010). The impact of information technology on academic scientists' productivity and collaboration patterns. Management Science, 56(9), 1439–1461. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gail, M. H., & Green, S. B. (1976). Critical values for the one-sided two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(355), 757–760.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garfield, E. (1964). Can citation indexing be automated? In Stevens, M. E., Giuliano, V. E., & Heilprin, L. B. (Ed.), Statitical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation, Symposium Proceedings (pp. 189–192).Google Scholar
  13. Hagen, N. T. (2010). Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: How many papers does it take to make a PhD? Scientometrics, 85(2), 567–579. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0214-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, B. F. (2009). The burden of knowledge and the ‘death of the renaissance man’: Is innovation getting harder? The Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 283–317. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00531.x.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleinberg, J. M. (1999). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM, 46(5), 604–632. doi: 10.1145/324133.324140.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kushkowski, J. D., Parsons, K. A., Wiese, W. H. (2003). Master's and doctoral thesis citations: Analysis and trends of a longitudinal study. Portal, 3(3), 459–479. doi: 10.1353/pla.2003.0062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lariviere, V., Zuccala, A., Archambault, E. (2008). The declining scientific impact of theses: Implications for electronic thesis and dissertation repositories and graduate studies. Scientometrics, 74(1), 109–121. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-0106-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lillquist, E., Green, S. (2010). The discipline dependence of citation statistics. Scientometrics, 84(3), 749–762. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0162-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2011). MIT Theses. doi: 1721.1/7582.
  20. National Science Foundation. (2010). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2009.
  21. Noether, G. E. (1963). Note on the Kolmogorov statistic in the discrete case. Metrika, 7(1), 115–116. doi: 10.1007/BF02613966.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostriker, J. P., Kuh, C. V., & Voytuk, J. A. (Ed.). (2011). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. Park, C. (2011). EECS-Biology major to give foundation in two thriving areas. The Tech, 131(21), 1, 18.Google Scholar
  24. Small, H. (2004). On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation. Scientometrics, 60(1), 71–79. doi: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027310.68393.bc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. doi: 10.1126/science.1207745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tukey, J. W., Ciminera, J. L., & Heyse, J. F. (1985). Testing the statistical certainty of a response to increasing doses of a drug. Biometrics, 41(1), 295–301.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vinkler, P. (1987). A quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics, 12(1-2), 47–72. doi: 10.1007/BF02016689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen, G.R. Goethals (Ed.), Theories of Group Behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IBM Thomas J. Watson Research CenterHawthorneUSA

Personalised recommendations