Scientometrics

, Volume 102, Issue 3, pp 1987–1996 | Cite as

Philosophy of science viewed through the lense of “Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy” (RPYS)

Article

Abstract

We examine the sub-field of philosophy of science using a new method developed in information science, Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy (RPYS). RPYS allows us to identify peak years in citations in a field, which promises to help scholars identify the key contributions to a field, and revolutionary discoveries in a field. We discovered that philosophy of science, a sub-field in the humanities, differs significantly from other fields examined with this method. Books play a more important role in philosophy of science than in the sciences. Further, Einstein’s famous 1905 papers created a citation peak in the philosophy of science literature. But rather than being a contribution to the philosophy of science, their importance lies in the fact that they are revolutionary contributions to physics with important implications for philosophy of science.

Keywords

Philosophy of science Citation peaks Thomas Kuhn Albert Einstein Karl Popper Logical empiricism 

References

  1. Barth, A., Marx, W., Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2014). On the origins and the historical roots of the Higgs boson research from a bibliometric perspective. The European Physical Journal Plus, 129(6), 1–13. doi:10.1140/epjp/i2014-14111-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2013). The proposal of a broadening of perspective in evaluative bibliometrics by complementing the times cited with a cited reference analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 84–88. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curd, M., & Psillos, S. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. De Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, bigscience. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch—Wissenschaft 48. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Frank, P. (1949). Modern science and its philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Garfield, E. (1963). Citation indexes in sociological and historical research. American Documentation, 14(4), 289. doi:10.1002/asi.5090140405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfield, E. (1987). A different sort of great-books list: The 50 twentieth-century works most cited in the arts and humanities citation index, 1976–1983. Current Contents, 16, 101–105.Google Scholar
  10. Garfield, E. (2001). From computational linguistics to algorithmic historiography (Lazerow Lecture). In Paper presented as part of a panel on “knowledge and language”: Building large-scale knowledge bases for intelligent applications, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield, E., Pudovkin, A. I., & Istomin, V. S. (2003). Why do we need algorithmic historiography? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutting, G. (2009). What philosophers know: Case studies in recent analytic philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kostoff, R. N., & Shlesinger, M. F. (2005). CAB: Citation-assisted background. Scientometrics, 62(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Eugene Garfield and algorithmic historiography: Co-words, co-authors, and journal names. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 57(3), 248–260.Google Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Marx, W., & Milojevic, S. (2014). Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy applied to iMetrics: Scientometrics, Journal of Informetrics, and a relevant subset of (JASIST). Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 162–174. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marx, W., & Bornmann, L. (2014). Tracing the origin of a scientific legend by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS): The legend of the Darwin finches. Scientometrics, 99(3), 839–844. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1200-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marx, W., Bornmann, L., Barth, A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 751–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merton, R. K. (1965). On the shoulders of giants. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Merton, R. K. (1968). On the history and systematics of sociological theory. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (Enlarged ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Reisch, G. A. (2005). How the Cold War transformed philosophy of science: To the icy slopes of logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rescher, N. (2006). The Berlin school of logical empiricism and its legacy. Erkenntnis, 64(3), 281–304.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of science. Scientometrics, 47(2), 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43(1–2), 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wray, K. B. (2010). Philosophy of science: What are the key journals in the field? Erkenntnis, 72(3), 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyState University of New York, OswegoOswegoUSA
  2. 2.Division for Science and Innovation StudiesAdministrative Headquarters of the Max Planck SocietyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations