Scientometrics

, Volume 13, Issue 3–4, pp 103–124

Citations and scientific progress: Comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments

  • A. L. Porter
  • D. E. Chubin
  • Xiao-Yin Jin
Article

Abstract

This project compares various bibliometric measures and scientists' own judgments. Publication and cittion data are compiled for two cohorts of chemists awarded Sloan Fellowships. Citation patterns differ substantially between most cited papers and those these authors identify as their “best.” Theoretical, empirical, and methodological papers are contrasted as well. In addition, temporal citation patterns show that recognition spreads beyond the research area of a particular paper to yield “cross-disciplinary” citation surprisingly rapidly. Results suggest the utility of studying citation patterns among the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, but also caution against equating publication and citation counts with scientific progress.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. LEDERBERG, “Foreward”,Contemporary Classics in the Life Sciences, Vol. 1: Cell Biology, Philadelphia, ISI Press, 1986, pp vii-ix.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. GARFIELD, Citation data is subtle stuff,The Scientist, (April 6, 1987), 9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. NARIN,Evaluative Bibliometrics, Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons Inc., 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. IRVINE, B. R. MARTIN,Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners, Dover, NH: Frances Pinter, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. CALLON, J. LAW, A. RIP, (Eds),Qualitative Bibliometrics, Macmillan, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. E. COZZENS, (Ed.), Theme section: Funding and knowledge growth,Social Studies of Science, 16 (February 1986).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Office of Technology Assessment,Research as an Investment: Can We Measure the Returns? A Technical Memorandum, Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. J. FRANKLIN, R. JOHNSTON, “Co-citation bibliometric modeling as a tool for S&T policy and R&D management: Issues, applications, and developments, in: F. J. VAN RANN (Ed.),Handbook of the Quantitative Study of Science and Technology, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, M. E. BOECKMANN, Career patterns of scientists: A case for complementary data,American Sociological Review, 46 (1981) 488.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, F. A. ROSSINI, T. CONNOLLY,Indicators of Interdisciplinary Research, Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, F. A. ROSSINI, Citation classics' analysis: An approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research,JASIS 35 (November 1984) p. 360.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. L. PORTER, D. E. CHUBIN, M. E. BOECKMANN, T. CONNOLLY, F. A. ROSSINI,A Cross-Disciplinary Assessment of the Role of the Doctoral Dissertation in Career Development, Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology, Final Report to NSF, Science Resources Studies (Grant SRS78-18959), 1981.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. L. PORTER, F. A. ROSSINI, D. E. CHUBIN,Inderdisciplinary Research (Problem-focussed, Multi-skilled Research)—National Science Foundation Experiences, Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology, Final Report to NSF, Office of Interdisciplinary Research (Grant OIR-8209893), 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. GARFIELD, Journal Citation Studies 46. Physical Chemistry and Chemical Physics Journals, Part 1, Historical Background and Global Maps,Current Contents, (January 6, 1986a), p. 3.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. GARFIELD, Part 2, Core journals and most-cited papers,Current Contents, (January 13, 1986b), p. 3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. GARFIELD, Part 3, The evolution of Physical Chemistry to Chemical Physics,Current Contents, (January 20, 1986c), p. 3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. M. LAWANI, A. E. BAYER, Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications; New evidence with peer assessment,JASIS 34 (1983), p. 59.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. S. AVERSA, Citation patterns of highly cited papers and their relationship to literature aging: A study of the working literature,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. VINKLER, Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications,Scientometrics, 10 (1986) 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, Measuring Scientific Output: A Collective Biography Approach, Interim Report on NSF Grant No. PRA 84-13060, Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology, February 1985.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. E. CHUBIN, F. A. ROSSINNI, A. L. PORTER, T. CONNOLLY, (Eds) Interdisciplinary Analysis and Research, Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Institute for Scientific Information,Journal Citation Report, 1983, p. 99.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. A. ROSSINI, A. L. PORTER, D. E. CHUBIN, T. CONNOLLY, Crossdisciplinarity in the Biomedical Sciences: A preliminary analysis of Anatomy, in:Managing Interdisciplinary Research, S. R. EPTON, R. L. PAYNE, A. W. PEARSON (Eds), Wiley, Chichester, England, 1984, pp. 176–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. L. Porter
    • 1
  • D. E. Chubin
    • 2
  • Xiao-Yin Jin
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Industrial and Systems EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta(USA)
  2. 2.Office of Technology AssessmentU. S. Congress(USA)
  3. 3.Shanghai Institute of CeramicsShanghai(China)

Personalised recommendations