Abstract
This paper analyses communications between statistical methodology and applied statistics in terms of the similarity and dissimilarity in their authorship and citation patterns, and further the communication distance between them in terms of mutual citation and the time lag therein. Hypotheses are presented on their difference and distance and are verified for data from the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, the oldest statistical society in the world. The data analysis reveals that they are indeed different and distant each other to a certain extent but less distinctly than initially conjectured in the hypotheses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
E. V. Budilova, J. A. Drogalina, A. T. Teriokhin, Principal trends in modern ecology and its mathematical tools: An analysis of publications, Scientometrics, 39 (1997) 147-157.
H. Eto, Relationship of mathematical programming with mathematics, economic / regional planning and other specialties, Scientometrics, 45 (1999) 311-324.
H. Eto, Authorship and citation patterns in operational research journals in relation to competition and reform, Scientometrics, 47 (2000) 25-42.
A. V. Nemtsov, N. A. Zorin, Mathematical methods in psychiatric papers, Scientometrics, 42 (1998) 121-128.
G. P. O'Neill, Authorship patterns in theory based versus research based journals, Scientometrics, 41 (1998) 291-298.
D. J. de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eto, H. Bibliometric Distance between Methodology and Application in Statistics. Scientometrics 48, 85–97 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005684419288
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005684419288