Scientometrics

, Volume 94, Issue 2, pp 469–480 | Cite as

Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology

  • John N. Parker
  • Stefano Allesina
  • Christopher J. Lortie
Article

Abstract

Science is principally driven by the efforts of a vanishingly small fraction of researchers publishing the majority of scientific research and garnering the majority of citations. Despite this well-established trend, knowledge of exactly how many articles these researchers publish, how highly they are cited, and how they achieved their distinctive accomplishments is meager. This article examines the publication and citation patterns of the world’s most highly cited environmental scientists and ecologists, inquiring into their levels of scientific productivity and visibility, examining relationships between scientific productivity and quality within their research programs, and considering how different publication strategies contribute to these distinctive successes. Generally speaking, highly cited researchers are also highly productive, publishing on average well over 100 articles each. Furthermore, articles published by this group are more highly cited on average than articles published in premier generalist journal like Nature and Science, and their citation to publication ratios are more equitably distributed than is typical. Research specialization and primacy of authorship are important determinants of citation frequency, while geographic differences and collaborative propensity matter less. The article closes with a set of suggestions for those wishing to increase the use of their research by the scientific community.

Keywords

Citations Scientific elite Scientific productivity Collaboration Ecology Environmental science Specialization 

References

  1. Asknes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu, A. (2006). Using ISI’s ‘highly cited researchers’ to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence. Scientometrics, 68(3), 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batty, M. (2003). The geography of scientific citation. Environment and Planning A, 35, 761–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borsuk, R. M., Budden, A. E., Leimu, R., Aarson, L. W., & Lortie, C. J. (2009). The influence of author gender, national language and number of authors on citation rate in ecology. Open Ecology, 2, 25–28.Google Scholar
  5. Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., & Weber, E. (2002). Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2847–2850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, F. (2010). Scientists need a shorter path to research freedom. Nature, 467(7316), 635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis, W. (1955). Variations in productivity among creative workers. Scientific Monthly, 80, 277–278.Google Scholar
  10. Garfield, E. (1973). More on forecasting Nobel Prizes and the most-cited scientists of 1972! Current Contents, 40, 5–7.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (1981). The 1000 contemporary scientists most-cited 1965–1978. Part 1. The basic list and introduction. Current Contents, 41, 5–14.Google Scholar
  12. Garfield, E. (1984). The awards of science: beyond the Nobel Prize. Part 2. The winners and their most cited papers. Current Contents, 50, 3–17.Google Scholar
  13. Garfield, E. (1992). Of Nobel class, women in science, citation classics, and other essays. Current Contents, 35, 3–12.Google Scholar
  14. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goulden, M., Frasch, K., & Mason, M. A. (2009). Staying Competitive: Patching America’s Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.Google Scholar
  16. Hyett, M., & Parker, G. (2009). Can the highly cited psychiatric paper be predicted early? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(2), 173–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kostoff, R. N. (2007). The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics, 72, 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: research specialization as a missing link. Gender and Society, 20(6), 754–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leahey, E. (2007). Not by productivity alone: how visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 533–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leahey, E., Crockett, J. L., & Hunter, L. A. (2008). Gendered academic careers: specializing for success. Social Forces, 85(3), 1273–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. B. (2005a). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. B. (2005b). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55, 438–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leimu, R., Lortie, C. J., Tregenza, T., Koricheva, J. Budden, A. E., & Aarssen, L.W. (2008). Does it pay to have a bigwig as a co-author? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 410–411.Google Scholar
  25. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81, 114–132.Google Scholar
  26. Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., McKinlay, R. J., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2008). Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. BMJ, 336(7645), 655–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–324.Google Scholar
  28. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1986). Quantitative measures of communication in science. A study of the formal level. Social Studies of Science, 16, 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merton, R. M. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 5–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2005). Creative collaborations from afar: the benefits of independent authors. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nicolaisen, J., & Hjørland, B. (2007). Practical potentials of Bradford’s law: a critical examination of the received view. Journal of Documentation, 63(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Padial, A. A., Nabout, J. C., Siqueira, T., Bini, L. M., & Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. (2010). Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles. Scientometrics, 85(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parker, J. P., Lortie, C. J., & Allesina, S. (2010a). Characterizing a scientific elite: The social characteristics of the world’s most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 85(1), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parker, J. N., Vermeulen, N., & Penders, B. (2010b). Collaboration in the new life sciences. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  36. Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  37. Price, D. J. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fu, L., & Aliferis, C. (2008) Models for predicting and explaining citation count of biomedical articles. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings (Vol. 2008, pp. 222–226).Google Scholar
  40. Thompson Reutars. (2009). http://sciencewatch.com/dr/sci/09/apr12-09_1D/ (Accessed Dec. 7, 2011).
  41. Trifunac, M. D. (2006). On citation rates in earthquake engineering. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 36, 1049–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walters, G. D. (2006). Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime- psychology journals: author impact versus journal impact. Scientometrics, 69(3), 499–510.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warner, J. (2000). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the research assessment exercises. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John N. Parker
    • 1
  • Stefano Allesina
    • 2
  • Christopher J. Lortie
    • 3
  1. 1.Barrett, The Honors CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations