New patterns of scientific growth: How research expanded after the invention of scanning tunneling microscopy and the discovery of Buckminsterfullerenes

Heinze, Thomas; Heidler, Richard; Heiberger, Raphael H.; Riebling, Jan Rasmus

doi:10.1002/asi.22760

Cited by 19 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The methodological distinction between research breakthroughs and follow-up research was introduced by Heinze et al [ 59 ], who studied growth patterns of publications that cited two Nobel Prize–winning contributions in chemistry and physics. They focused on all publications that cite the papers in which these two particular research breakthroughs were first published.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

Jappe¹,

Pithan²,

Heinze³

2018

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of bibliometric measures in the evaluation of research has increased considerably based on expertise from the growing research field of evaluative citation analysis (ECA). However, mounting criticism of such metrics suggests that the professionalization of bibliometric expertise remains contested. This paper investigates why impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor and the h-index, proliferate even though their legitimacy as a means of professional research assessment is questioned. Our analysis is informed by two relevant sociological theories: Andrew Abbott’s theory of professions and Richard Whitley’s theory of scientific work. These complementary concepts are connected in order to demonstrate that ECA has failed so far to provide scientific authority for professional research assessment. This argument is based on an empirical investigation of the extent of reputational control in the relevant research area. Using three measures of reputational control that are computed from longitudinal inter-organizational networks in ECA (1972–2016), we show that peripheral and isolated actors contribute the same number of novel bibliometric indicators as central actors. In addition, the share of newcomers to the academic sector has remained high. These findings demonstrate that recent methodological debates in ECA have not been accompanied by the formation of an intellectual field in the sociological sense of a reputational organization. Therefore, we conclude that a growing gap exists between an academic sector with little capacity for collective action and increasing demand for routine performance assessment by research organizations and funding agencies. This gap has been filled by database providers. By selecting and distributing research metrics, these commercial providers have gained a powerful role in defining de-facto standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

Jappe¹,

Pithan²,

Heinze³

2018

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research suggests that collaboration leads to increased productivity and is understood as necessary for successful research and relevant for receiving funding (Heinze, Heidler, Heiberger, & Riebling, 2013;Iglič, Doreian, Kronegger, & Ferligoj, 2017;Katz & Martin, 1997;Melin & Persson, 1996;Tsai, Corley, & Bozeman, 2016;Wray, 2002). Researchers perceive publishing together easier, because they can exchange ideas and get feedback within teams more quickly than as single author (Gordon, 1980;Lewis, Ross, & Holden, 2012;Metz & Jäckle, 2017;Tsai et al, 2016).…”

Section: Collaboration Types In Academiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Kudos to you! Comparing co-authorships and acknowledgements in political science journals from Germany

Wallaschek¹,

Heiberger²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific research on academic collaboration focuses on co-authorships, citations and acknowledgements as 'reward triangle'. However, acknowledgements have received comparatively little attention. In this paper, we compare co-authorship and acknowledgement networks and investigate conditions that influence their formation (gender, institutional affiliation and status of authors and acknowledged individuals). We select three sub-disciplinary political science journals from Germany between 2010 and 2017. We employ techniques from social network analysis to compare these conditions by using homophily measures. The results demonstrate that co-authorships have a rather sparse network while including acknowledgements reveals hidden collaboration structures. Moreover, scholars from the same institution are more likely to co-author and acknowledge each other while we show heterophily effects for acknowledging and co-authoring behavior of professors. We also identify an underrepresentation of female academics as authors and credit-givers alike. Thus, our exploratory study reveals similarities and differences patterns for co-authorships and acknowledgements providing new ground for future studies on all aspects of collaborative behavior in science.

show abstract

“…Van Dalen and Henkens (2005) investigated tell-tale signals of later citation activity, in the field of demography, one of which was whether the state of uncitedness negatively impacted a paper's potential citation at a future time ("negative duration dependence"), and concluded that it was far from the "death sentence" common wisdom considered it to be, but a study by Li et al (2014) found that the length of sleep (i. e., uncitedness or very low citation activity) did correlate with lower probability of later awakening. Similarly, in a larger study on delayed recognition focusing onlyon highly cited papers, Glänzel, Schlemmer and Thijs (2003) found that delayed reception did not simply "shift" the citation process in time, and that belated citation activity came with higher risk of uncitedness. Levitt and Thelwall (2008) studied late citation to determine indicators that might predict the presence of (future) highly cited papers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition

Larivière

2014

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delayed recognition is a concept applied to articles that receive very few to no citations for a certain period of time following publication, before becoming actively cited. To determine whether such a time spent in relative obscurity had an effect on subsequent citation patterns, we selected articles that received no citations before the passage of ten full years since publication, investigated the subsequent yearly citations received over a period of 37 years and compared them with the citations received by a group of papers without such a latency period. Our study finds that papers with delayed recognition do not exhibit the typical early peak, then slow decline in citations, but that the vast majority enter decline immediately after their first-and often only-citation. Middling papers' citations remain stable over their lifetime, whereas the more highly cited papers, some of which fall into the "sleeping beauty" subtype, show non-stop growth in citations received. Finally, papers published in different disciplines exhibit similar behavior and did not differ significantly.

show abstract

New patterns of scientific growth: How research expanded after the invention of scanning tunneling microscopy and the discovery of Buckminsterfullerenes

Cited by 19 publications

References 58 publications

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

Kudos to you! Comparing co-authorships and acknowledgements in political science journals from Germany

On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About