Scientometrics

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 571–586 | Cite as

Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon

Article

Abstract

According to Garfield (1980),most scientists can name an example of an important discovery that had little initial impact on contemporary research. And he uses Mendel's work a classical example. Delayed recognition is sometimes used by scientists as an argument against citation-based indicators based on citation windows defined for a short- or medium-term initial period beginning with the paper's publication year. This study is focussed on a large-scale analysis of the citation history of all papers indexed in the 1980 annual volume of the Science Citation Index. The objective is two-fold, particularly, to analyse whether the share of delayed recognition papers is significant and whether such papers are typical of the work of their authors at that time. In a first step, the background of advanced bibliometric models by Glänzel, Egghe, Rousseau and Burrell of stochastic citation processes and first-citation distributions is described briefly. The second part is devoted to the bibliometric analysis of first-citation statistics and of the phenomenon of citation delay. In a third step, finally, delayed reception publications have been studied individually. Their topics and the citation patterns of other papers by the same authors have been studied to uncover principles of regularity or exceptionality of delayed reception publications.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BURRELL, Q. L. (2001), Stochastic modelling of the first citation distribution. Scientometrics, 52: 3-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. EGGHE, L., ROUSSEAU, R. (1990), Introduction to Informetrics. Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. GARFIELD, E. (1980), Premature discovery or delayed recognition-Why? Current Contents, 21, May 26: 5-10.Google Scholar
  4. GLäNZEL, W., SCHUBERT, A. (1992), Some facts and figures on highly cited papers in the sciences, 1981-1985, Scientometrics, 25: 373-380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. GLäNZEL, W. (1992), On some stopping times on citation processes. From theory to indicators. Information Processing and Management, 28: 53-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. GLäNZEL, W., SCHOEPFLIN, U. (1994), A stochastic model for the ageing analyses of scientific literature, Scientometrics, 30: 49-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GLäNZEL, W., SCHOEPFLIN, U. (1995), A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21: 37-53.Google Scholar
  8. GLäNZEL, W., SCHUBERT, A. (1995), Predictive aspects of a stochastic model for citation processes, Information Processing & Management, 31: 69-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GLäNZEL, W., SCHUBERT, A., BRAUN, T. (2002), A relational charting approach to the world of basic research in twelve science fields at the end of the second millennium. Scientometrics, 55: 335-348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ROUSSEAU, R. (1988), Citation distribution of pure mathematics journals. In: L. EGGHE, R. ROUSSEAU (Eds), Informetrics 87/88. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 249-260.Google Scholar
  11. ROUSSEAU, R. (1994), Double exponential models for first-citation processes. Scientometrics, 30: 213-227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. SCHUBERT, A., GLäNZEL, W. (1986), Mean response time. A new indicator of journal citation speed with application to physics journals. Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, B 36: 121-125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publisher/Akadémiai Kiadó 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Glänzel
    • 1
  • Balázs Schlemmer
    • 2
  • Bart Thijs
    • 1
  1. 1.Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Steunpunt O&O StatistiekenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Research OrganisationBudapest (Hungary

Personalised recommendations