Characterizing a scientific elite: The social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology

Scientometrics

Volumn 85, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 129-143

  Parker, John N ^a   Lortie, Christopher ^b   Allesina, Stefano ^c  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Citation; Ecology; Environmental science; Highly cited; Scientific elite; Stratification

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955845252     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0234-4     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aksnes, D. W. (2006). Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 169-185.
2. Basu, A. (2006). Using ISI's 'Highly cited researchers' to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence. Scientometrics, 68(3), 361-375.
3. Batty, M. (2003). The geography of scientific citation. Environment and Planning A, 35, 761-765.
4. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. In M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 217-256). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6. Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
7. Dennis, W. (1955). Variations in productivity among creative workers. Scientific Monthly, 80, 277-278.
8. Falagas, M. E., Ierodiakonou, V., & Alexiou, V. G. (2008). At what age do biomedical scientists do their best work? Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Accessed June 9, 2009, from http://www. fasebj. org/cgi/rapidpdf/fj. 08-117606v1. pdf.
9. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13, 285-305.
10. Gallup Organization. (2006). Consumption Habits Poll, conducted July 6-9, 2006. News release, Gallup Poll News Service.
11. Garfield, E. (1973). More on forecasting Nobel Prizes and the most-cited scientists of 1972! Current Contents No, 40, 5-7.
12. Garfield, E. (1981). The 1000 contemporary scientists most-cited 1965-1978. Part 1. The basic list and introduction. Current Contents, 41, 5-14.
13. Garfield, E. (1992). Of Nobel class, women in science, citation classics, and other essays. Current Contents, 35, 3-12.
14. Garfield, E., & Malin, M. V. (1968, December 26-31). Can Nobel Prize winners be predicted? Paper presented at the 135th meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dallas, TX.
15. Grim, T. (2008). A possible role of social activity to explain differences in publication output among ecologists. Oikos, 117(4), 484-487.
16. Hackett, E. J. (2005). Essential tensions: Identity, control and risk in research. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 787-826.
17. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
18. Hargens, L. L., & Schuman, H. (1990). Citation counts and social comparisons: Scientists' use and evaluation of citation index data. Social Science Research, 19(3), 205-221.
19. Hermanowicz, J. (1998). The stars are not enough: Scientists-their passions and professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Hermanowicz, J. (2005). Classifying universities and their departments: A social world perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 61(1), 26-55.
21. Hoffer, T. B., & Grigorian, K. (2005). All in a week's work: Average work weeks of doctoral scientist and engineers. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
22. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2004). Global estimates of high-level brain drain deficit. The FASEB Journal, 18, 936-939.
23. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender and Society, 20(6), 754-780.
26. Leahey, E. (2007). Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 533-561.
27. Leahey, E., Crockett, J. L., & Hunter, L. A. (2008). Gendered academic careers: Specializing for success. Social Forces, 85(3), 1273-1309.
28. Long, J. S. (1987). Problems and prospects for research on sex differences in the scientific career. In L. S. Dix (Ed.), Women: Their underrepresentation and career differentials in science and engineering (pp. 157-169). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159-178.
30. Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45-71.
31. Lortie, C. J. (2009). Letter to the editor: A global comment on scientific publications, productivity, people, and beer. Scientometrics. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0077-z.
32. Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-324.
33. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1986). Quantitative measures of communication in science. A study of the formal level. Social Studies of Science, 16, 151-172.
34. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 435-444.
35. McIntosh, R. P. (1989). Citations classics of ecology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 64(1), 31-49.
36. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
37. Pasterkamp, G., Rotmans, J. I., De Kleun, D. V. P., & Borst, C. (2007). Citation frequency: A biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles. Scientometrics, 70(1), 153-165.
38. Price, D. J. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
39. Primack, R. B., & O'Leary, V. E. (1989). Research productivity of men and women ecologists: A longitudinal study. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 70, 7-12.
40. Sills, S. J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 22-30.
41. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
42. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Small, H. (2004). Why authors think their papers are highly cited. Scientometrics, 60, 305-316.
44. Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30, 83-106.
45. Symonds, M. R. E., Gemmell, N. J., Braisher, T. L., Gorringe, K. L., & Elgar, A. E. (2006). Gender differences in publication output: Towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE, 1(1), e127.
46. Thompson Scientific. (2007). Most cited researchers in environment and ecology (1997-2007). Accessed March 1, 2010, from http://in-cites. com/top/2007/fourth07-env. html.
47. Tregenza, T. (2002). Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(8), 349-350.
48. Trifunac, M. D. (2006). On citation rates in earthquake engineering. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 36, 1049-1062.
49. Warner, J. (2000). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the research assessment exercises. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 453-460.
50. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-343.
51. Zuckerman, H. (1996). Scientific elite. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.