A survey of authors of highly cited papers in 22 fields was undertaken in connection with a new bibliometric resource called Essential Science Indicators (ESI®). Authors were asked to give their opinions on why their papers are highly cited. They generally responded by describing specific internal, technical aspects of their work, relating them to external or social factors in their fields of study. These self-perceptions provide clues to the factors that lead to high citation rate, and the importance of the interaction between internal and external factors. Internal factors are revealed by the technical terminology used to describe the work, and how it is situated in the problem domain for the field. External factors are revealed by a different vocabulary describing how the work has been received within the field, or its implications for a wider audience. Each author's response regarding a highly cited work was analyzed on four dimensions: the author perception of its novelty, utility, significance, and interest. A co-occurrence analysis of the dimensions revealed that interest, the most socially based dimension, was most often paired with one of the other more internal dimensions, suggesting a synergy between internal and external factors.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Campanario, J. M. (1993), Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly-cited. Social Studies of Science, 23(2): 342-362.Google Scholar
- Chubin, D. E., Porter, A. L., Rossini, F. A. (1984), Citation classics analysis: an approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 35(6): 360-368.Google Scholar
- Furberg, C. D., et al. (2002), Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). Journal of the America Medical Association, 288(23): 2981-2997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Garfield, E. (1981), Citation Classics: four years of the human side of science. Current Contents, 22 (1 June 1981), 5-16. Reprinted in: Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 5 (Philadelphia: ISI Press), pp. 123–134.Google Scholar
- Gilbert, G. N., Mulkay, M. (1984), Opening Pandora.s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists.' Discourse. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
- Kolpin, D. W., Furlong, E. T., Meyer, M. T., Thurman, E. M., Zaugg, S. D., Barber, L. B., Buxtonet, H. T. (2002), Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US streams, 1999–2000: a national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(6): 1202-1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moravcsik, M. J., Murugesan, P. (1975), Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science, 5(1): 86-92.Google Scholar
- Pendlebury, D. A. (1991), Science, citation and funding. Science, 251(5000): 1410-1411.Google Scholar
- Small, H. (1978), Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3): 327-340.Google Scholar
- Small, H. (1982), Citation context analysis. Progress in Communication, 3: 287-310.Google Scholar