Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2013, Pages

  Fanelli, Daniele ^a   Glänzel, Wolfgang ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICINE; HIERARCHY OF THE SCIENCES; HUMANITIES; HYPOTHESIS; KNOWLEDGE; MATHEMATICS; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STATISTICS; TIME FACTOR;

BIBLIOMETRICS; SCIENCE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84879478453     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066938     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Lewes GH (1853) Comte's philosophy of the sciences. London: Henry G. Bohn.
2. Comte A (1835) Cours de philosophie positive: Borrani et Droz.
3. Feyerabend P (2002) Against method. London: Verso.
4. Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of chicago Press.
5. Dupre' J, (1983) The disunity of science. Mind 17: 321-346.
6. Fanelli D (2010) "Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. Plos One 5.
7. Simonton DK, (2009) Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4: 441-452.
8. Braxton JM, Hargens LL (1996) Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. Higher education: handbook of theory and research. New York: Agathon Press.
9. Zuckerman HA, Merton RK (1973) Age, aging, and age structure in science. In: Storer N, editor. The Sociology of Science, by R K Merton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 497-559.
10. Cole S, (1983) The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology 89: 111-139.
11. Cole S, (1994) Why sociology doesn't make progress like the natural sciences. Sociological Forum 9: 133-154.
12. Simonton DK, (2006) Scientific status of disciplines, individuals, and ideas: Empirical analyses of the potential impact of theory. Review of General Psychology 10: 98-112.
13. Clinton Sprott J (2006) Chaos and Time-Seires Analysis (first published in 2003). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Zuchowski LC, (2012) Disentangling complexity from randomness and chaos. Entropy 14: 177-212.
15. Bertuglia CS, Vaio F (2005) Nonlinearity, Chaos, and Complexity: The Dynamics of Natural and Social Systems: The Dynamics of Natural and Social Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Halley JD, Winkler DA, (2006) Classification of self-organization and emergence in chemical and biological systems. Australian Journal of Chemistry 59: 849-853.
17. Halley JD, Winkler DA, (2008) Critical-like self-organization and natural selection: Two facets of a single evolutionary process? Biosystems 92: 148-158.
18. Humphreys P, (1990) A conjecture concerning the ranking of the sciences. Topoi-an International Review of Philosophy 9: 157-160.
19. Humphreys P (1989) The chances of explanation: causal explanation in the social, medical and physical sciences. Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.
20. Cole S (2001) What's Wrong With Sociology?: Transaction Publishers.
21. Tanner RES (2011) Chance and Probability: The Limitations of the Social Sciences: Concept Publishing Company.
22. Lipton P, (2005) Testing hypotheses: Prediction and prejudice. Science 307: 219-221.
23. Graydonald K, Kramer MS, (1988) Causality Inference in Observational vs. Experimental Studies - An Emperical Comparison. American Journal of Epidemiology 127: 885-892.
24. Rosenbaum PR, (2001) Replicating effects and biases. American Statistician 55: 223-227.
25. Lindsay RM, Ehrenberg ASC, (1993) The Design of Replicated Studies. American Statistician 47: 217-228.
26. Anonymous (2005) In praise of soft science. Nature 435: 1003.
27. Lovy A, Paskhover B, Trachtman H, (2010) Teaching bioethics: The tale of a "soft" science in a hard world. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 22: 319-322.
28. Tapp A, Hughes T, (2008) Why "soft science" is the key to regaining leadership in marketing knowledge. European Journal of Marketing 42: 265-278.
29. Snow CP, Collini S (2012) The Two Cultures: Cambridge University Press.
30. Kagan J (2009) The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Humanities in the 21st Century: Cambridge University Press.
31. Windelband W (1894 (1998) History and natural science. Theory & Psychology 8: 5-22.
32. Bishop RC (2007) The Philosophy of the Social Sciences: An Introduction: Bloomsbury.
33. Krausz E (2000) The limits of science; Schachterle L, editor. Canterbury: Peter Lang.
34. Slingerland E (2008) What Science Offers the Humanities: Integrating Body and Culture: Cambridge University Press.
35. Mazlish B (2007) The Uncertain Sciences: Transaction Publishers.
36. Moses JW, Knutsen T (2007) Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research: PALGRAVE USA.
37. Clarke S (1998) Metaphysics and the disunity of scientific knowledge: Ashgate.
38. Dupre J (1995) The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science: Harvard University Press.
39. Cooper RV (2008) Psychiatry and philosophy of science: McGill-Queen's University Press.
40. Cole S, editor (2001) What's wrong with sociology? London: Transaction Publishers.
41. Simonton DK, (2004) Psychology's status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology 8: 59-67.
42. Cozzens SE, (1985) Using the archive - Derek Price's theory of differences among the sciences. Scientometrics 7: 431-441.
43. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, et al. (2010) Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment 14.
44. Price DJS (1970) Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. Communication among scientists and engineers. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company. 3-22.
45. Nicolaisen J, Frandsen TF, (2012) Consensus formation in science modeled by aggregated bibliographic coupling. Journal of Informetrics 6: 276-284.
46. Boyack KW, Klavans R, (2010) Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61: 2389-2404.
47. Skilton PF, (2006) A comparative study of communal practice: Assessing the effects of taken-for-granted-ness on citation practice in scientific communities. Scientometrics 68: 73-96.
48. Varga AV, (2011) Measuring the semantic integrity of scientific fields: a method and a study of sociology, economics and biophysics. Scientometrics 88: 163-177.
49. Fanelli D, (2012) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90: 891-904.
50. Fanelli D (2012) Positive results receive more citations, but only in some disciplines. Scientometrics in press.
51. Fanelli D, Glänzel W (2012) A Bibliometric test of the Hierarchy of the Sciences: Preliminary results. In: Archambault E, Gingras Y, Lariviere V, editors. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Montréal, CA. 452-453.
52. Yitzhaki M, (2002) Relation of the title length of a journal article to the length of the article. Scientometrics 54: 435-447.
53. Glänzel W, Schoepflin U, (1999) A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing & Management 35: 31-44.
54. Lariviere V, Archambault E, Gingras Y, Vignola-Gagne E, (2006) The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57: 997-1004.
55. Borner K (2010) Atlas of Science: Visualizing What We Know. Boston: MIT Press.
56. Moed HF, Van Leeuwen TN, Reedijk J, (1998) A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. Journal of Documentation 54: 387-419.
57. Leydesdorff L, Rafols I, (2011) Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics 5: 87-100.
58. Yitzhaki M, (1997) Variation in informativity of titles of research papers in selected humanities journals: A comparative study. Scientometrics 38: 219-229.
59. Hyland K, (2001) Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20: 207-226.
60. Shwed U, Bearman PS, (2010) The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation. American Sociological Review 75: 817-840.
61. Glänzel W, Czerwon HJ, (1996) A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics 37: 195-221.
62. Cranmer SJ, Desmarais BA, (2011) Inferential Network Analysis with Exponential Random Graph Models. Political Analysis 19: 66-86.
63. Robins G, Pattison P, Kalish Y, Lusher D, (2007) An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks 29: 173-191.
64. Hardy PMA, Bryman PA (2009) Handbook of Data Analysis: Sage Publications (CA).
65. Selya AS, Rose JS, Dierker LC, Hedeker D, Mermelstein RJ (2012) A practical guide to calculating Cohenís f2, a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in Psychology 3.
66. Team RC (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
67. Handcock MS, Hunter DR, Butts CT, Goodreau SM, Krivitsky PN, et al. (2012) ergm: A Package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. 3.0-3 ed.
68. Handcock MS, Hunter DR, Butts CT, Goodreau SM, Morris M (2003) statnet: Software tools for the statistical modeling of network data. Version 2.0. ed.
69. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG, (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41: 1149-1160.
70. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M (2009) Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
71. Thomas H, Wilson AD, (2011) 'Physics envy', cognitive legitimacy or practical relevance: dilemmas in the evolution of management research in the UK. British Journal of Management 22: 443-456.
72. Forbes AE, Cardinale BJ, Harvey CT, Helmus MR, Ives AR, et al. (2004) Do ecologists have physics envy? Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting Abstracts 89: 160-161.
73. Ioannidis JPA, (2005) Why most published research findings are false. Plos Medicine 2: 696-701.
74. Ioannidis JPA, (2008) Perfect study, poor evidence: Interpretation of biases preceding study design. Seminars in Hematology 45: 160-166.
75. Ioannidis JPA, (2008) Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19: 640-648.
76. Reich ES (2009) Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World: Palgrave Macmillan.
77. Stroebe W, Postmes T, Spears R, (2012) Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7: 670-688.
78. Fanelli D, (2013) Only Reporting Guidelines Can Save (Soft) Science. European Journal of Personality 27: 120-144.
79. Fanelli D, (2013) Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 494: 149.