Citation Distributions in High Energy Physics

Thu Nov 21 09:59:23 EST 2002

Don't forget Kuhn's definition of "Normal Science".
I've found a brief introduction to this issue in
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~phil/courses/312/03kuhn.htm
It mentions that
"Normal science is 'research firmly based upon one or more past scientific
achievements'. It consists mainly in 'puzzle-solving' within a particular
theoretical framework - within a particular paradigm, in Kuhn's terminology.
It is a gradual, somewhat derivative activity, filling in the details,
elaborating on themes already conceived."
This might derive in papers not necessarily highly cited, but certainly not
dead, they are part of Science and scientific production, and have their own
roles in Science. Scientific activity is too complex to find living and dead
papers, just looking for citations! Is the only function of a paper to be
cited?
I'm not a specialist in Philosophy of Science, so I won't get any further on
this.
Regards,
Ernesto

-----Original Message-----
From: ASIS Special Interest Group on Metrics
[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]On Behalf Of Andrea Scharnhorst
Sent: November 21, 2002 4:57
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Citation Distributions in High Energy Physics

I found just this interpretation of "dead" papers the most problematic in
the paper because of the negative image conveyed by the notion "dead".

The fact that most of the papers are not cited at all is well known as is
the fact that most scientists have a relatively low productivity compared
with the few highly productive scientists. Can this fact be turned into a
negative evaluation of the papers or scientists sitting on the one edge
of a skew distribution?

Every scientist build his work on a tremendous part of other papers.
They might be well-known or un-know or yet not known.
An empirical study in "successive citations" presented by Jan Vlachy 1986
(Jan Vlachy, Scientometrics analyses in physics - where we stand, Czech. J.
Phys.
B 36 [1986] 1-13, see also Jan Vlachy, Scientometrics 7[1986]505-528)
showed 8 different types in time series of citations of physics papers:
- initially high recognized
-basic recognized
-late recognized, innovative
-late recognized, longevity
-gradually recognized
-genial
-longevity
-repeatedly recognized
Having this in mind "dead" turns into "timely dead" or "partly dead" or
"periodic dead"...

The role of the bulk of less known or un-known scientists was also discussed
in the debate around the Ortega hypothesis.
1993 Eugene Garfield wrote reviewing this debate
"I was driven to find a way to acknowledge these scientists
as well as other "mediocre" researchers, as J. Ortega
y Gasset called them. They are not necessarily of Nobel
class, but their work provides the foundation for
other scientists' groundbreaking discoveries. Ortega y Gasset
suggested this hypothesis in his 1932 book The revolt of Masses,
stating that science is built on the contributions
of thousands of creative individuals, not merely an
elite group of highly visible persons."
(see (Essays of an Information Scientist: Of Nobel Class, Women in Science,
Citation Classics and Other Essays, Vol:15, p.387, 1992-93 ,
Current Contents, #45, p.5-10, November 8, 1993)
 http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v15p387y1992-93.pdf )

In the sociology of science further interpretations have been distributed
around this fact.
1965 Robert K. Merton wrote a book "On the shoulders of Giants", and in
a current comment about this book Derek de Solla Price
wrote 1977 "'If I have seen farther, it is by standing
on the shoulders of giants.' The origin of this aphorism, widely attributed
to Sir Isaac Newton, ..."
(Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol:3, p.176-178, 1977-78     Current
Contents, #28, p.5-8, July 11, 1977, see also
  http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/history/heritagey1998.html )

Instead of speaking of two populations (the "dead" and the "alive") it would
be more interesting to follow the exchange processes between these two
populations.
One might expect that papers change their status due to different citation
classics.
What is the amount of papers which are traveling between these two
populations?

What also strikes me was that the intersection point between the two
power laws is just at x=50 citations? Is there any explanation
that it is just this number?

Andrea

Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst
NERDI
Netherlands Institute for Scientific Information Services (NIWI)
KNAW
Joan Muyskenweg 25

Postbus 95110
1090 HC Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +20 4628 670
www.niwi.knaw.nl/nerdi

>>> suppe at PRINCETON.EDU 11/21/02 03:09AM >>>
There is a significant new paper filed earlier this month at the physics e-
print archive (arxiv.org) by S. Lehmann et al. dealing with the "Citation
distributions in high-energy physics" based on data from the SPIRES
database.
They show that theory, experiment and phenomenology have nearly identical
distributions within high-energy physics. The data are qualitatively similar
to the ISI data for all of science shown by S. Redner (1998), but the
interpretations are perhaps more insightful.

{S. Redner. How popular is your paper? an emperical study of the citation
distribution. European Physics Journal B, 4:131-4, 1998.}

S. Lehmann et al. indicate that a single power-law distribution does not fit
the data but a double power-law distribution does, composed of one dominated
by no-longer cited papers and a second distribution dominated by still
actively cited papers.  Additionally they indicate that the most highly
cited
papers receive fewer than expected citations because they reach canonical
status (a point that others have made).

The most quotable quote is "The picture which emerges is thus a small number
of interesting and significant papers swimming in a sea of "dead" papers."

arxiv:physics/0211010
       Title: Citation Distributions in High Energy Physics
       Authors: S. Lehmann, B. Lautrup, A. D. Jackson (The Niels Bohr
Institute)
       Comments: 7 pages, 4 figures, 2 tables
       Subj-class: Physics and Society
pdf available at:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0211010

-- -- John Suppe,
Department of Geosciences
Guyot Hall
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08544-1003
(609) 258-4119 office
(609) 258-1515 lab
(609) 258-1274 fax
suppe at princeton.edu
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/suppe/index.html