Publishing Productivity in Sport Psychology 1970–2000: An Exploratory Examination of the Lotka-Price Law

Abstract

The current study examined whether the distribution of published research papers in the field of sport psychology followed the Lotka-Price Law of scientific productivity. All authors who had published articles in five sport psychology journals from 1970 to 2000 were considered. The impact of those authors was determined by the total number of published papers in all journals. Results provided limited support for the Lotka-Price Law; however, it appeared that the field of sport psychology was less elitist than other fields. Although these findings suggest that productivity in this field is similar to that in other fields of science, more research is needed to shed light on the role of the eminent scientist and the average researcher in the advancement of knowledge in sport psychology.

An evaluation of author productivity in international radiography journals 2004–2011

“…More important is to recognize that across four journals and 8 years, 20% of the publications in this study (167 unique articles) were written by only 3% of the journal contributors. This skewed distribution is similar to the results of Baker et al . and demonstrates the potential level of influence that a relatively small number of individuals may have on the whole profession.…”

“…and demonstrates the potential level of influence that a relatively small number of individuals may have on the whole profession. The significant contribution of a small number of authors to an individual evidence base is a common theme in the wider literature, and there is ongoing debate as to whether a discipline is influenced more by the limited volume of work produced by a broad body of scholars or the larger contribution of an “eminent few.” Research previously investigating the factors which influence the prolific “few” proposed cumulative advantage and the superstar phenomenon to explain success factors including motivation, creativity, training, and work habits …”

“…The significant contribution of a small number of authors to an individual evidence base is a common theme in the wider literature, and there is ongoing debate as to whether a discipline is influenced more by the limited volume of work produced by a broad body of scholars or the larger contribution of an "eminent few." 9,22 Research previously investigating the factors which influence the prolific "few" proposed cumulative advantage and the superstar phenomenon to explain success factors including motivation, creativity, training, and work habits. 22 Despite the relatively small number of radiographers working in Australia, they represented the highest number of prolific authors, slightly skewed by migration, but still the most productive.…”

“…The sample was therefore comprised of publications reflecting the medical radiation sciences profession within a single journal and provided a global picturethe Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Science (Canada), Radiography Controversy exists in bibliometric research as to whether analysis of author productivity should include only the "senior" author or all contributors, 7,10 and whether authors should be wholly or fractionally counted. 9,15 Convention is that the most senior author is listed last as they are often the project supervisor, although the radiography literature does not wholly support this premise, and therefore data for all authors were included. Although this means that the opportunity of direct comparison with some of the previous examinations of Lotka's law is not possible, it does ensure that any comparisons are consistently using the same data set.…”

“…In relation to the research base of a profession, examination of author productivity has been used as proxy to demonstrate scholarly maturity. [5][6][7] Diagnostic radiography author productivity has only been reviewed on one longitudinal single-journal study, 8 but studies from other disciplines have concluded that the most productive authors will contribute disproportionately to the evidence base and is illustrated by Baker et al 9 in their review of sport psychology which found that just 3% of authors provided 24% of publications. To assess author productivity, a comparison with Lotka's law is the most widely cited method and has been tested by numerous studies in many disciplines.…”