Abstract
To identify the differences in the knowledge production between disciplines, we analyzed the relation between the average paper length and impact factor of 100 journals from 5 disciplines. We found negative correlation between the average length and the impact factor in the natural sciences, but not in the social sciences. We also analyzed the structures of paper and the citation patterns. These analyses are expanded to the comparison between Mode 1 and Mode 2. All results showed the natural sciences articles could emphasize the differences from previous studies and be diffused effectively by the short standardized style of paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
C. P. Snow, S. Collini,The two cultures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
Y. Fujigaki, Filling the gap between the discussion on science and scientist’s everyday’s activity: Applying the autopoiesys system theory to scientific knowledge,Social Science Information, 37(1) (1998) 5–22.
N. Mullins, W. Snizek, K. Oehler, The structural analysis of a scientific paper, inA. F. J. van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier, 1988.
C. Bazerman, Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: Spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 1893–1980,Social Studies of Science, 14(2) (1984) 163–196.
I. N. Sengupta, Three new parameters in bibliometrics research and their application to rerank periodicals in the field of biochemistry,Scientometrics, 10 (5–6) (1986) 235–242.
P. O. Seglen, Quantification of scientific article contents,Scientometrics, 35 (3) (1996) 355–366.
W. Snizek, K. Oehler, N. Mullins, Textual and nontextual characteristics of scientific papers: Neglected science indicators,Scientometrics, 20 (1) (1991) 25–35.
P. Bourke, L. Butler, Publication types, citation rates and evaluation,Scientometrics, 37 (3) (1996) 473–494.
S. Hemilin, Social studies of the humanities: a case study of research conditions and performance in ancient history and classical archaeology, and English,Research Evaluation, 6 (1) (1996) 53–61.
T. Finkenstaedt, Measuring research performance in the humanities,Scientometrics, 19 (5–6) (1990) 409–417.
D. J. S. Price,Little Science, Big Science… and Beyond, Columbia University Press, New York, 1986.
S. E. Cozzens, Using the archive: Derek Price’s theory of differences among the sciences,Scientometrics, 7 (3–6) (1985) 431–441.
H. F. Moed, Bibliometrics measurement of research performance and Price’s theory of differences among the sciences,Scientometrics, 15 (5–6) (1989) 473–483.
L. Leydesdorff, Has Price’s dream come true: is scientometrics a hard science?,Scientometrics, 31 (2) (1994) 193–222.
M. Gibbons et al.,The New Production of Knowledge, SAGE Publisher, London, 1994.
B. Latour,Science in Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
T. Luukkonen, Why has Latour’s theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis,Scientometrics, 38 (1) (1997) 27–37.
S. E. Cozzens, Comparing the sciences: Citation context analysis of papers from neuropharmacology and the sociology of science,Social Studies of Science, 15 (1) (1985) 127–153.
R. N. Kostoff, Federal Research Impact Assessment: State-of-the-Art,Journal of American Society for Information Sciences, 45 (6) (1994) 428–440.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research is partly funded by International Program in Special Coordinating Funds for Promoting S&T from Science and Technology Agency of Japan.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hayashi, T., Fujigaki, Y. Differences in knowledge production between disciplines based on analysis of paper styles and citation patterns. Scientometrics 46, 73–86 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766296
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766296