Re-examining price's conjectures on the structure of reference networks: Results from the special relativity, spatial diffusion modeling and role analysis literatures

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 669-687

  Baldi, Stéphane ^a   Hargens, Lowell L ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031525920     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030631297027004004     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Derek J. de Solla Price, 'Networks of Scientific Papers', Science, Vol. 149 (30 July 1965), 510-15.
2. Belver C. Griffith, 'Derek Price's Puzzles: Numerical Metaphors for the Operation of Science', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 13 (1988), 351-60;
3. Susan E. Cozzens, 'Using the Archive: Derek Price's Theory of Differences among the Sciences', Scientometrics, Vol. 7 (1985), 431-41.
4. Belver C. Griffith, 'Derek Price's Puzzles: Numerical Metaphors for the Operation of Science', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 13 (1988), 351-60; The N-rays reference-network graph is reproduced as the frontispiece of the most recent review volume covering scientometrics/bibliometrics; see Christine L. Borgman (ed.), Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990). The N-rays reference-network graph is reproduced as the frontispiece of the most recent review volume covering scientometrics/bibliometrics; see Christine L. Borgman (ed.), Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990).
5. The N-rays reference-network graph was actually the idea of Price's student, Donald deB. Beaver. After seeing Beaver's work, Price realized the potential of using a reference-network graph to study the development of a research literature, and therefore included it in his 1965 Science paper (op. cit. note 1).
6. Cozzens, op. cit. note 2.
7. Derek J. de Solla Price, 'Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology and Nonscience', in Carnot E. Nelson and Donald K. Pollock (eds), Communication Among Scientists and Engineers (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1970), 3-22, quote at 15.
8. Thomas F. Gieryn, 'Boundaries of Science', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995), 393-443.
9. See also Ronald N. Giere, Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), 59.
10. Mary Jo Nye, 'N-rays: An Episode in the History and Psychology of Science', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 11 (1990), 125-56;
11. Thomas F. Gieryn, 'Boundaries of Science', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995), 393-443. See also Ronald N. Giere, Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), 59. Robert T. Lagemann, 'New Light on Old Rays', American Journal of Physics, Vol. 45 (1977), 281-84. Robert T. Lagemann, 'New Light on Old Rays', American Journal of Physics, Vol. 45 (1977), 281-84. Ashmore's recent paper, by focusing on the Blondlot-Wood episode, slights the broader context of debate and dispute that characterized the area: see Malcolm Ashmore, 'The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney Phenomenon, a Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23 (1993), 67-106.
12. Mary Jo Nye, 'N-rays: An Episode in the History and Psychology of Science', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 11 (1990), 125-56; Ashmore's recent paper, by focusing on the Blondlot-Wood episode, slights the broader context of debate and dispute that characterized the area: see Malcolm Ashmore, 'The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney Phenomenon, a Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23 (1993), 67-106. Ashmore's recent paper, by focusing on the Blondlot-Wood episode, slights the broader context of debate and dispute that characterized the area: see Malcolm Ashmore, 'The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney Phenomenon, a Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23 (1993), 67-106.
13. Cozzens, op. cit. note 2.
14. In our study, 'ordinary' citations constituted a residual category made up of all non-self- and non-negative citations. This category encompasses several categories that previous studies have distinguished - for example, 'perfunctory' and 'organic' citations. See Michael J. Moravcsik and Poovanalingam Murugesan, 'Some Results on the Function and Quality of Citations', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 5 (1975), 86-92.
15. Stéphane Baldi and Lowell L. Hargens, 'Reassessing the N-Rays Reference Network: The Role of Self Citations and Negative Citations', Scientometrics, Vol. 34 (1995), 239-53.
16. Grace M. Carter, Peer Review, Citations, and Biomedical Research Policy (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1974);
17. A. Jack Meadows, Communication in Science (London: Butterworths, 1974), 160-61;
18. Grace M. Carter, Peer Review, Citations, and Biomedical Research Policy (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1974); Moravcsik & Murugesan, op. cit. note 9; Moravcsik & Murugesan, op. cit. note 9; Daryl E. Chubin and Soumyo D. Moitra, 'Content Analysis of References: Adjunct or Alternative to Citation Counting?', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 5 (1975), 423-41; Renata Tagliacozzo, 'Self-Citations in Scientific Literature', Journal of Documentation, Vol. 33 (1977), 251-65.
19. Grace M. Carter, Peer Review, Citations, and Biomedical Research Policy (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1974); A. Jack Meadows, Communication in Science (London: Butterworths, 1974), 160-61; Daryl E. Chubin and Soumyo D. Moitra, 'Content Analysis of References: Adjunct or Alternative to Citation Counting?', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 5 (1975), 423-41; Daryl E. Chubin and Soumyo D. Moitra, 'Content Analysis of References: Adjunct or Alternative to Citation Counting?', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 5 (1975), 423-41; Renata Tagliacozzo, 'Self-Citations in Scientific Literature', Journal of Documentation, Vol. 33 (1977), 251-65.
20. Grace M. Carter, Peer Review, Citations, and Biomedical Research Policy (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1974); A. Jack Meadows, Communication in Science (London: Butterworths, 1974), 160-61; Moravcsik & Murugesan, op. cit. note 9; Renata Tagliacozzo, 'Self-Citations in Scientific Literature', Journal of Documentation, Vol. 33 (1977), 251-65. Renata Tagliacozzo, 'Self-Citations in Scientific Literature', Journal of Documentation, Vol. 33 (1977), 251-65.
21. Maurice Crosland, Science Under Control: The French Academy of Sciences, 1795-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Crosland notes that members of the French Academy could have their presentations published within a week in the journal Comptes-rendus without the burden of editorial review. The only requirements for publication were that (1) the paper had to be presented in front of the members of the Academy and (2) by the end of the day of the presentation, the author had to provide the Secretary of the Academy with a written summary of six or fewer pages.
22. This is the rationale behind the journal 'impact factor' measure: see Eugene Garfield, Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities (New York: Wiley, 1979). There is a potential incompatibility between emphasizing the age distribution of references, measured in terms of year of publication, rather than the likelihood that papers cite one of the most recently published papers in a research area. Price emphasized the latter in his N-rays paper (op. cit. note 1), and the former in Price, op. cit. note 5.
23. Duncan MacRae, 'Growth and Decay Curves in Scientific Citations', American Sociological Review, Vol. 34 (1969), 631-35.
24. Diana Crane noted a similar problem with treating rapid growth in a field's membership as indicating that the field is experiencing rapid and cumulative scholarly progress: see D. Crane, Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1972), 90-93.
25. Griffith (op. cit. note 2) notes that Price's work has not been replicated for any natural-science field.
26. Wolfgang Pauli, Theory of Relativity (New York: Pergamon, rev. edn, 1958);
27. Gerald Holton, 'Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory', in Special Relativity Theory: Selected Reprints (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1963), 1-8.
28. Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence and Early Interpretation (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1981);
29. Wolfgang Pauli, Theory of Relativity (New York: Pergamon, rev. edn, 1958); Gerald Holton, 'Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory', in Special Relativity Theory: Selected Reprints (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1963), 1-8. Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Boston, MA: Birkhauser, 1984). Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Boston, MA: Birkhauser, 1984). Miller notes that because Einstein had already established himself as a reputable scholar, his first special-relativity paper was probably accepted without peer review. One cannot help wondering whether it might have appeared later, or in a much altered form, if it had been subjected to contemporary peer-review procedures. See Juan Miguel Campanario, 'Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes It Is Hard to Publish Papers that Are Later Highly-Cited', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23 (1993), 342-62.
30. Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence and Early Interpretation (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1981); Miller notes that because Einstein had already established himself as a reputable scholar, his first special-relativity paper was probably accepted without peer review. One cannot help wondering whether it might have appeared later, or in a much altered form, if it had been subjected to contemporary peer-review procedures. See Juan Miguel Campanario, 'Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes It Is Hard to Publish Papers that Are Later Highly-Cited', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23 (1993), 342-62. Miller notes that because Einstein had already established himself as a reputable scholar, his first special-relativity paper was probably accepted without peer review. One cannot help wondering whether it might have appeared later, or in a much altered form, if it had been subjected to contemporary peer-review procedures. See Juan Miguel Campanario, 'Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes It Is Hard to Publish Papers that Are Later Highly-Cited', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23 (1993), 342-62.
31. In fact, Karl Popper cited the difference in the development of relativity theory compared to such theories as Marxism and Freudianism as the stimulus for his attempts to specify the factors that distinguish progressive from non-progressive research areas: see K.R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Harper, 1963), 34.
32. Pauli, op. cit. note 16.
33. We ended our reference network at the end of 1915 to avoid including papers on general relativity: see Miller, op. cit. note 15, 388-89.
34. Moravcsik & Murugesan, op. cit. note 9.
35. Anthony C. Gatrell, 'The Geometry of a Research Specialty: Spatial Diffusion Modeling', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 74 (1984), 437-53.
36. For a discussion of the development of this research area, see Alaina G. Michaelson, 'The Development of a Scientific Specialty as Diffusion through Social Relations: The Case of Role Analysis', Social Networks, Vol. 15 (1993), 217-36.
37. Nicholas C. Mullins, Theory and Theory Groups in American Sociology (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
38. Alaina G. Michaelson, 'A Reading List in Role Analysis', Connections, Vol. 14 (1991), 10-13.
39. Papers sometimes cite forthcoming work, and such citations would be indicated by dots beneath the diagonal of a reference-network graph (see examples below). In our analyses we count all such citations as falling in a reference network's 'research front' (see below).
40. r to be at least 10: see William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963), 584. This condition is met in all of the analyses reported below.
41. See note 5.
42. This and all subsequent results for the N-rays literature are based on our replication of Price's original study; see note 10 above. It appears that Price's study counted many non-specific mentions of previous work as constituting bibliographic references, whereas we included only specific bibliographic references.
43. Fifty-four percent of the N-rays papers appeared in Comptes-rendus Hebdomadaires de l'Académie des Sciences, whereas the journal that published the largest number of special relativity papers, Annalen Der Physik, published only 33% of the papers in the special-relativity network.
44. Because reviews cover much of the past literature on a topic, their references are much less likely to fall in the research front than references in non-review papers. Literatures with higher proportions of review papers will therefore tend to show lower proportions of references in the research front. By omitting review papers from our analysis, we avoid the effects of this potential source of variation in the recency of references.
45. Meadows, op. cit. note 11; Tagliacozzo, op cit. note 11.
46. Moravcsik & Murugesan, op. cit. note 9; Carter, op. cit. note 11. Because there were so few negative citations in the papers we studied, we did not attempt to evaluate statistically the extent to which they refer to papers inside or outside the research front.
47. The high density of citations in the special-relativity network is impressive, given the low average number of citations in turn-of-the-century physics articles: see Charles Bazerman, 'Theoretical Integration in Experimental Reports in Twentieth-Century Physics: Spectroscopic Articles in Physical Review, 1893-1980', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14 (1984), 163-96.
48. Following Price's work, our analysis has focused on the recency of references in a network. There may be other characteristics that are important structural features of reference networks, however. See, for example, Norman P. Hummon and Patrick Doreian, 'Connectivity in a Citation Network: The Development of DNA Theory', Social Networks, Vol. 11 (1989), 39-63.
49. Belver C. Griffith and Henry G. Small, 'The Structure of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Literature', in Stephan Schwartz (ed.), Stockholm Papers in Library and Information Science (Stockholm: Library of the Royal Institute of Technology, 1983), 1-53.
50. Susan E. Cozzens, 'Comparing the Sciences: Citation Context Analysis of Papers from Neuropharmacology and the Sociology of Science', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 15 (1985), 127-53.
51. Charles Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), 278-88.