, Volume 100, Issue 3, pp 755–765 | Cite as

Breakthrough paper indicator 2.0: can geographical diversity and interdisciplinarity improve the accuracy of outstanding papers prediction?

  • Ilya V. PonomarevEmail author
  • Brian K. Lawton
  • Duane E. Williams
  • Joshua D. Schnell


We report progress on new developments in the breakthrough paper indicator, which allows early selection of a small group of publications which may become potential breakthrough candidates based on dynamics of publication citations and certain qualitative characteristics of citations. We used a quantitative approach to identify typical citation patterns of highly cited papers. Based on these analyses, we propose two forecasting models to select groups of breakthrough paper candidates that exceed high citation thresholds five years post-publication. Here we study whether interdisciplinarity in the subject categories or geographical diversity serve as possible measures to improve ranking of breakthrough paper candidates. We found that ranked geographical diversities of known breakthrough papers have equal or better ranks than corresponding citations ranks. This allows us to apply additional filtering for better identifications of breakthrough candidates. We studied several interdisciplinarity indices, including richness, Shannon index, Simpson index, and Rao-Stirling-Porter index. We did not find any correlations between citation ranks and ranked interdisciplinarity indices.


Bibliometrics Scientometrics Highly cited papers Breakthrough paper indicator Citation trajectories Interdisciplinarity measures Rao-Stirling-Porter index Geographical diversity Research management Science policy 



We are very thankful to Y. Seger for editorial assistance.


  1. Abrahams, E., et al. (1979). Scaling theory of localization: absence of quantum diffusion in two dimensions. Physical Review Letters, 42(10), 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aversa, E. S. (1985). Citation patterns of highly cited papers and their relationship to literature aging: a study of the working literature. Scientometrics, 7, 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barábasi, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Chaomei, et al. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York: John Willey & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. De Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Network of Scientific Papers. Science, 149, 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Solla Price, D. J. (1976). General theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5–6), 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Distel, R. J., et al. (1987). Nucleoprotein complexes that regulate gene expression in adipocyte differentiation: direct participation of c-fos. Cell, 49(6), 835–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, R. G., & Steptoe, P. C. (1978). Birth after reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet, 312(8085), 366.Google Scholar
  10. Frenken, K., et al. (2005). The citation impact of research collaboration in science-based industries: A spatial-institutional analysis. Papers in regional science, 89(2), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garfield, E. (1990). Who will win the nobel prize in economics: here is a forecast based on citation indicators. Current Contents, 11, 3–7.Google Scholar
  14. Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Of nobel class: a citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine, 13, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geller, N. L., de Cani, J. S., & Davis, R. E. (1981). Lifetime-citation rates: a mathematical model to compare scientists’ work. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glänzel, W., et al. (2003). Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon. Scientometrics, 58(3), 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heck, R. F. (1968). Acylation, methylation, and carboxyalkylation of olefins by Group VIII metal derivatives. The Journal of the American Chemical Society, 90(20), 5518–5526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohn, W., & Sham, L. J. (1965). Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Physical Review Letters, 140(4A), A1133–A1138.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merton, R. K. (1968). Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nalimov V.V. and Mul’chenko Z.M. (1969): Naukometriya. Izuchenie nauki kak informatsionnogo protsessa (Scientometrics. Study of science as an information process.) Moscow: Nauka, 192 pgs (Available in English:
  24. Novoselov, K. S., et al. (2004). Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science, 306(5696), 666–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pendlebury, D. (1989). The 1989 nobel prize in medecine: 20 who desrve it. Scientist, 3(19), 14–15.Google Scholar
  26. Ponomarev, I. V., et al. (2014). Predicting highly cited papers: A method for early detection of candidates breakthroughs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter, A. L., et al. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72, 117–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82, 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rao, C. R. (1982). Diversity, its meausrement, decomposition, apportionment and analysis. Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics, 44, 1–21.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Redner, S. (2005). Citation statistics from 110 years of Physical Review. Physics Today, 58, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rousseau, L., & Egghe, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics: quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  32. Small, H. G. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of Science. Scientometrics, 47, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weinberg, S. (1973). A model of leptons. Physical Review Letters, 19(21), 1264–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilya V. Ponomarev
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian K. Lawton
    • 2
  • Duane E. Williams
    • 1
  • Joshua D. Schnell
    • 1
  1. 1.Thomson ReutersRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.Redtail Creek SoftwareRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations