The "Mendel syndrome" in science: Durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists

Scientometrics

Volumn 89, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 177-205

  Costas, Rodrigo ^a   van Leeuwen, Thed N ^a   van Raan, Anthony F J ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bibliometric indicators; Durability; Individual level analysis; Mendel syndrome; Micro level analysis; Obsolescence

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052632234     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0436-4     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170.
2. Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.
3. Amat, C. B., & Yegros Yegros, A. (2009). Median age difference of references as indicator of information update of research groups: A case study in Spanish food research. Scientometrics, 78(3), 447-465.
4. Aversa, E. S. (1985). Citation patterns of highly cited papers and their relationships to literature aging: A study of the working literature. Scientometrics, 7(3-6), 383-389.
5. Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 134(3479), 596-602.
6. Beed, C., & Beed, C. (1996). Measuring the quality of academic journals: The case of economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 18(3), 369-396.
7. Bordons, M., Zulueta, M. A., Cabrero, A., & Barrigon, S. (1995a). Identifying research teams with bibliometric tools. Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 83-92). River Forest, IL, USA: Rosary College.
8. Bordons, M., Zulueta, M. A., Cabrero, A., & Barrigon, S. (1995b). Research performance at the micro level: Analysis of structure and dynamics of pharmacological research teams. Research Evaluation, 5(2), 137-142.
9. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). Citation speed as a measure to predict the attention an article receives: An investigation of the validity of editorial decisions at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 83-88.
10. Burton, R. E., & Kebler, R. W. (1960). The "Half-life" of some scientific and technical literatures. American Documentation, 11, 18-22.
11. Butler, L. (2008). Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: Quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality Framework. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 83-92.
12. Campanario, J. M. (2002). The parallelism between scientists' and students' resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1095-1110.
13. Campanario, J. M., & Acedo, E. (2007). Rejecting Highly Cited Papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. Journal of the American Society from Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 734-743.
14. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Wright, R. A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
15. Cole, S. (1970). Professional standing and the reputation of scientific discoveries. The American Journal of Sociology, 76(2), 286-306.
16. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2005). Bibliometric indicators at the micro-level: Some results in the area of natural resources at the Spanish CSIC. Research Evaluation, 14(2), 110-120.
17. Costas, R., Bordons, M., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2009). Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 740-753.
18. Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2010a). A bibliometric classificatory approach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: The effects of age on productivity and impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1564-1581.
19. Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2010b). Is scientific literature subject to a 'sell-by-date'? A general methodology to analyze the 'durability' of scientific documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 329-339.
20. de Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers: The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science, 149(3683), 510-515.
21. Foss, N. J. (1995). The economic thought of an Austrian Marshallian: George Barclay Richardson. Journal of Economics Studies, 22(1), 23-44.
22. Garfield, E. (1970). Would Mendel's work have been ignored if the Science Citation Index was available 100 years ago? Current Contents, 2, 69-70.
23. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359-375.
24. Garfield, E. (1980). Premature discovery or delayed recognition-Why? Essays of an Information Scientist, 4, 488-493.
25. Garfield, E. (1989). Delayed recognition in scientific discovery: Citation frequency analysis aids the search for case histories. Essays of an Information Scientist, 12, 154-160.
26. Garfield, E. (1990). More delayed recognition. Part 2. From Inhibin to Scanning electron microscopy. Essays of an Information Scientist, 13, 68-74.
27. Garfield, E., & Malin, M. V. (1968). Can Nobel Prize winners be predicted? 135th Annual Meeting, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dallas, TX: AAAS.
28. Glänzel, W. (2008). Seven myths in bibliometrics-About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. ISSI Newsletter, 4(2), 24-32.
29. Glänzel, W., & Garfield, E. (2004). The myth of delayed recognition. The Scientist, 18(11), 8.
30. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). A stochastic model for the ageing of scienific literature. Scientometrics, 30(1), 49-64.
31. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception process of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21(1), 37-53.
32. Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., & Thijs, B. (2003). Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon. Scientometrics, 58(3), 571-586.
33. Glass, B. (1974). The long neglect of genetic discoveries and the criterion of prematurity. Journal of the History of Biology, 7(1), 101-110.
34. Graham, M. H., & Dayton, P. K. (2002). On the evolution of ecological ideas: Paradigms and scientific progress. Ecology, 83(6), 1481-1489.
35. Kaufaman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1999). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis (p. 113). New York, NY: Wiley.
36. Line, M. B. (1993). Changes in the use of literature with time-Obsolescence revisited. Library Trends, 41(4), 665-683.
37. MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (pp. 281-297). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
38. MacRoberts, M. H. (1985). Was Mendel's paper on Pisum neglected or unknown? Annals of Science, 42, 339-345.
39. Magri, M.-H., & Solari, A. (1996). The SCI Journal Citation Reports: A potential tool for studying journals? Scientometrics, 35(1), 93-117.
40. McCain, K. W. (2011). Eponymy and obliteration by incorporation: the case of the Nash Equilibrium. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1412-1424.
41. Meadows, J. (2004). The immediacy effect-Then and now. Journal of Documentation, 23(1), 601-608.
42. Mendel, G. (1865). Versuche über Plflanzen-hybriden. Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn (Vol. 4, pp. 3-47).
43. Moed, H. F. (1989). Bibliometric measurement of research performance and Price's theory of differences among the sciences. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 473-483.
44. Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381-422.
45. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1998). A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(4), 387-419.
46. Moore, R. (2001). The "Rediscovery" of Mendel's work. Bioscience, 27(2), 13-24.
47. Nederhof, A. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1987). Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: A comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics. Scientometrics, 36(2), 185-206.
48. Noma, E., & Olivastro, D. (1985). Are there enduring patents? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 36(5), 297-301.
49. Pollmann, T. (2000). Forgetting and the ageing of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 47(1), 43-54.
50. Punnett, R. C. (1907). Mendelism. Cambridge: Bowes and Bowes.
51. Rodriguez-Ruiz, O. (2009). The citation indexes and the quantification of knowledge. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 250-266.
52. Sandström, U., & Sandström, E. (2009). Meeting the micro-level challenges: Bibliometrics at the individual level. 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (845-856). Rio de Janeiro: BIREME/PAHO/WHO.
53. Stent, G. S. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227(6), 84-93.
54. Tahai, A., & Rigsby, J. T. (1998). Information processing using citations to investigate journal influence in accounting. Information Processing and Management, 34(2/3), 341-359.
55. van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2004). Demographers and their journals: Who remains uncited after ten years? Population and Development Review, 30(3), 489-506.
56. van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2005). Signals in science-On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics, 64(2), 209-233.
57. van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467-472.
58. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 11-21.
59. Zuckerman, H., & Miller, R. B. (1980). Indicators of science: Notes and queries. Scientometrics, 2(5-6), 347-353.