Scientometrics

, Volume 19, Issue 3–4, pp 185–197 | Cite as

The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy

  • R. Plomp
Article

Abstract

After presenting arguments that the number of highly cited papers (HCPs, 25 or more citations) has some advantages as an indicator of an author's scientific impact, the paper discusses citation data of 338 university professors in departments of medicine in the Netherlands. An analysis of the distribution of HCPs over the years provides support for the following conclusions: (1) prolific researchers with a large number of HCPs usually manifest themselves already in their Ph.D. work, apparently almost independent of the scientific setting; (2) it cannot be taken for granted that a successful Ph.D. student with some HCPs connected with his/her doctoral thesis will become a prolific successful researcher; (3) it is unlikely that an unsuccessful Ph.D. student without HCPs connected with his/her doctoral thesis will turn out to be a prolific successful researcher; and (4) for researchers, just as for artists, sportsmen, etc., talent is the most decisive factor in being successful.

Keywords

Doctoral Thesis Decisive Factor Citation Data Scientific Impact Scientific Setting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Cole, J.R. Cole, Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science,American Sociological Review, 32 (1967) 377–390.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Folly, B. Hajtman, J.I. Nagy, I. Ruff, Some methodological problems in ranking scientists by citation analysis,Scientometrics, 3 (1981) 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.M. Lawani, A.E. Bayer, Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications: New evidence with peer assessment,Journal of the American Society for Information Science 34 (1983) 59–66.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B.R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Rigter, Evaluation of performance of health research in the Netherlands,Research Policy, 15 (1986) 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.A. Virgo, A statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers,Library Quarterly, 47 (1977) 415–430.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Garfield, The 100 most-cited papers ever and how we select citation classics,Current Contents, 27, June 4 (1984) 3–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Garfield, The articles most-cited in 1961–1982. 2. Another 100 citation classics highlight the technology of science,Current Contents, 27, July 16(1984) 3–12.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Garfield, The articles most-cited in 1961–1982. 3. Another 100 all-time citation classics,Current Contents, 27, August 27 (1984) 3–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Garfield, The number of biochemical articles is growing, but why also the number of references per article?Current Contents, 23, March 17 (1980) 3–14.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Garfield, Journal citation studies. 43. Astrosciences journals — What they cite and what cites them,Current Contents, 27 (1984) 3–14.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Plomp, Statistical reliability of citation frequency as an indicator of scientific impact,Scientometrics, 17 (1989) 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science,Science, 159 (1968) 56–63. Reprinted in:R.K. Merton,The Sociology of Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973, pp. 439–459.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.K. Simonton,Genius, Creativity, and Leadership. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1984, pp. 86–88.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Garfield, The 1,000 contemporary scientists most-cited 1965–1978. Part I. The basic list and introduction,Current Contents, 24, October 12 (1981) 3–12.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.J. De Solla Price,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.D. Haitun, Stationary scientometric distributions. Part II. Non-Gaussian nature of scientific activities,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    B.F. Reskin, Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science,American Sociological Review, 42 (1977) 491–504.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.S. Long, R. McGinnis, The effects of the mentor on the academic career,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.R. Cole, S. Cole,Social Stratification in Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973, p. 368.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.A. Campbell, M.B.M. Campbell, The validity of the Roy approxiation for citation analysis,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Roy, N.R. Roy, G.G. Johnson Jr., Approximating total citation counts from first author counts and from total papers,Scientometrics, 5 (1983) 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A.M. Diamond, Jr., The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists,Journal of Gerontology, 41 (1986) 520–525.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Van Heeringen, P. A. Dijkwel, The relationship between age, mobility and scientific productivity. Part II. Effect of age on productivity,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 281–293.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Cole, Age and scientific performance,American Journal of Sociology, 84 (1979) 958–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    H.A. Abt, At what ages did outstanding American astronomers publish their most-cited papers?,Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 95 (1983) 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    D.B. Herrmann, How old were the authors of significant research in twentieth century astronomy at the time of their greatest achievements?,Scientometrics, 13 (1988) 135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R.L. Helmreich, J.T. Spence, W.L. Thorbecke, On the stability of productivity and recognition,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7 (1981) 516–522.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A.J. Nederhof, A.F.J. Van Raan, Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: A comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 333–350.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Plomp
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineFree UniversityAmsterdam(The Netherlands)

Personalised recommendations