Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On fundamental regularities of the distribution of scientific productivity

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a methodologicl and mathematical study of the main regularities related to the distribution of scientific productivity. An analysis of the se regularities is given from the point of view of two approaches, the frequency and the rank approaches, to the problem of scientific productivity. The connection between these approaches is studied and a number of mathematical formulas that are both of theoretical significance for the understanding of information data basis formation mechanisms and of practical one, in particular, for the estimate of Bradford's law parameters, are deduced. The relation between the scientific productivity distributions under consideration and the stable non-Gaussian distributions is analyzed. The formation of the corresponding regularities of scientific productivity is regarded as a consequence of probability process combined with deterministic one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and references

  1. J. VLACHÝ, Frequency distributions of scientific performance. A bibliography of Lotka's law and related fenomena,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 109–131.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For the growth statistics see:.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. J. HUBERT, Bibliometric models for journal productivity,Social Indicators Research, 4 (1977) 441–473.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. I. YABLONSKI, Models and Methods of Mathematical Studies of Science (a scientific-analytical review), Moscow, 1977.

  5. B. MANDELBROT, New methods in statistical economies,Journal of Political Economy, 71 (1963) 421–440.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. J. LOTKA, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity,Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16 (1926) 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. VLACHÝ, Variable factors in scientific communities (Observations on Lotka's law),Theorie a metoda, Praha, IV/I, 1972.

  8. B. N. PETROV, G. M. ULANOV, S. V. UL'YANOV, E. M. KHAZEN, Information-Semantic Problems in Organization and Control, Moscow, 1977.

  9. A. I. YABLONSKY, Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.

  10. P. D. ALLISON, D. de S. PRICE, B. C. GRIFFITH, M. J. MORAVCSIK, J. A. STEWART, Lotka's law: a problem in its interpretation and application,Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976), No. 2, 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Even if one considers only the scientific output measured, for instance, not by publications but by the number of new ideas, according toCrane's results concerning the spreading of innovations in agriculture (See: D. CRANE,Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago, 1972), the distribution of the number of innovations advanced by various scientists is also governed by Lotka's law. The author of the lawA. J. Lotka who analyzed no only the chemical abstract journal butF. Auerbach's Geschichtstafeln der Physik for 1600–1900 and obtained an agreement between the corresponding distributions of scientific output (as judged by publications and discoveries) noted the same.

  12. A. J. YABLONSKY. Models and Methods of Mathematical Studies of Science (a scientific-analytical review), Moscow, 1977.

  13. See. A. J. YABLONSKY,op. cit., note 9, Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976, for details of randomization of branching processes.

  14. A. I. YABLONSKY, Structure and dynamics of modern science (certain methodological problems). In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1976, Moscow, 1977.

  15. D. de S. PRICE, Networks of scientific papers,Science, 149 (1965) No. 3683, 510–515.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Dieks, H. Chang, Difference in impact of scientific publications: Some indices derived from a citation analysis,Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976) No. 2.

  17. Note also the sociological studies of the scientific effect that were conducted, for instance, by D.Crane by means of questionnaire distribution among the members of the “invisible college” in one of the problematic fields of rural sociology (the distribution of innovations in agriculture), in order to determine the influence of other scientists on the results of representatives of the given “college” [See: D. CRANE, Social structure in a grop of scientists: a test of the “Invisible College” hypothesis,American Sociological Review, 34 (June 1969) No. 3, 335–352]. Of interest is that the distribution of “influencing” scientists with respect to the number of them being chosen by the examination participants is also governed (qualitatively) by a law similar to that of Lotka: the small number of scientists was given by many participants and vice versa, the basic number of “influencing” scientists was mentioned only once.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Dicks, H. Chang,op cit., note 16. Difference in impact of scientific publications: Some indices derived from a citation analysis,Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976) No. 2.

  19. . p. 261.

    Google Scholar 

  20. e.g. J. R. COLE Patterns of intellectual influence in scientific research,Sociology of Education, 43 (1970) No. 4, 377–403; I. V. MARSHAKOVA prospective connection in the system of scientific publications. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1976, Moscow, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  21. S. C. BRADFORD,Documentation, London, 1948.

  22. An important feature of this case is exactly that the corresponding set of journals should reflect with sufficient completeness the sphere of knowledge under study. “The law of dispersal of papers in the journals is valid only after a certain time interval has elapsed during which the mass of publications pertaining to a given topic will be formed, in other words, on the expiration of time required for the general spread of interest in a given subject”. [A. AVRAMESCU, The modelling of scientific information transfer,Mezhdunarodnyi forum po informatsii i dokumentatsii, 1 (1975) No. 1, 18]. For this reason, by the way, the validity of Bradford's law for a given information data base can serve as an indication of a sufficiently well formed scientific field.

    Google Scholar 

  23. B. C. BROOKES, Bradford's law and the bibliography of science,Nature, 224 (1969) No. 5223, 953–956.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. S. DONOHUE,Understanding Scientific Literatures — a Bibliometric Approach. The MIT press, Cambridge (Mass.), London, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  25. The empirical parameter S equals one for very “narrow” scientific fields and grows with the increase of the range of problems treated in a given field. Therefore, its definition can be used in order to estimate quantitatively the degree of broadness of the discipline under study. For example, A.Pope [see: A. Pope, Bradford's law and the periodical literature of information science.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (1975) No. 4] having analyzed the corresponding bibliographical data bases, arrived at a conclusion that information science (S=2.6) occupies an intermediate position between library science (S=1) and computational science (S=3.4), i.c., the set of its subjects is broader than the former but narrower than the latter which agrees, by the way, also with the intuitive concepts about the broadness of the set of subjects in these three disciplines.

  26. S. C. BRADFORD,op. cit., note 21.Documentation, London. 1948.

  27. E. A. Wilkinson, The ambiguity of Bradford's law,Journal of Documentation, 28 (1972) No. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Note that such peculiar feature of representing scientific information as its quantization in the form of papers, books, unification of papers into discrete quantization units (journals), etc. exercise informational structure, its stability, the formation of Bradford's law, etc. For instance, it is noted that a peculiar feature of Bradford's law which consists in the presence of a “nucleus” in a collection with its own dynamics of scientific information can be explained by “such specific form of quantization as periodicals” (A. I. MIKHAILOV, A. I. CHERNYI, R. C. GILYAREVSKY,Scientific Communications and Informatics, Moscow, 1976, p. 184). For this reson the “quantum” approach to the study of regularities of the organizing of the information base is of interest, and not only for informatics but for the science of sciences as well, for instance, in connection with the analysis of scienfitic communication. Recent papers of A.Hill et al. [B. HILL, Zipf's law and prior distributions for the composition of a population,Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65 (331) (1970) 1220 B. HILL, Rank frequency forms of Zipf's law,Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69 (348) (1974) 1017; B. HILL, M. WOODROOFE, Stronger forms of Zipf's law,Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70 (349) (1975) 212; M. WOODROOFE, B. HILL, On Zipf's law,Journal of Applied Probability, 12 (1975) 425–434], in which Bose-Einstein statistics (see, e.g., W. FELLER,An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Wiley & Sons, Inc., London, Chapman & Hall Ltd., 1957) is used for derivation of Zipf's law, the ranks and analog of Lotka's law (Bradford's law representing the cumulative form of Zipf's law), provide an interesting example of the application of quantum statistics.

  29. See, e.g., D. CRANE,op. cit., note 11; Even if one considers only the scientific output measured, for instance, not by publications but by the number of new ideas, according toCrane's results concerning the spreading of innovations in agriculture (See: D. CRANE,Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago, 1972), the distribution of the number of innovations advanced by various scientists is also governed by Lotka's law. The author of the lawA. J. Lotka who analyzed no only the chemical abstract journal butF. Auerbach's Geschichtstafeln der Physik for 1600–1900 and obtained an agreement between the corresponding distributions of scientific output (as judged by publications and discoveries) noted the same. A. I. MIKHAILOW et al.,op. cit., note 28.Scientific Communications and Informatics, Moscow, 1976, p. 184).

  30. D. CRANE,ibid., Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago, 1972. A. I. MIKHAILOV et al.,op. cit. Scientific Communications and Informatics, Moscow, 1976, p. 213.

  31. The concept of hierarchic structure as a way of ensuring stability of a complex system under development with the presence of external limitations or the existence of contradictory requirements of centralized and decentralized control is quite widely spread in modern system analysis (see, for example, N. N. MOISEEV, The Mathematician Asks Questions ... Moscow, 1974.).

  32. A. J. MIKHAILOV et al.,op. cit., note 28,Scientific Communications and Informatics, Moscow, 1976, p. 66.

  33. A. J. YABLONSKY,op. cit., note 9. Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.

  34. A. J. YABLONSKY,ibid. Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.

  35. W. FELLER,An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Vol. 2. J. Wiley & Sons, New York—London—Sydney, 1966; B. V. GNEDENKO, A. N. KOLMOGOROV,Limiting Distributions for Sums of Independent Random Variables, Moscow-Leningrad, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See: A. J. YABLONSKY,op. cit., note 9, Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976. for the analysis of the scientological aspects of this connection.

  37. M. G. KENDALL, Natural law in the social sciences,Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 124 (1964) part 1, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See. e.g., B. MANDELBROT,.

    Google Scholar 

  39. A. J. YABLONSKY. The development of science as an open system. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1978, Moscow, 1978.

  40. M. G. KENDALL, ; G. K. ZIPF,Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort, Cambridge, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. VLACHÝ,.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Yu. K. ORLOV, On the statistical structure of communications optimal for human perception (on the formulation of the question),Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya, Ser. 2, 1970, No. 8.

  43. Yu. A. SHREIDER, Complex systems and cosmological principles. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.

  44. N. WIENER,I am a Mathematician. Doubleday Book Co., Inc., Garden-City, New York, 1956; A. A. IGNAT'EV, A. I. YABLONSKY, Analytic structures of scientific communication. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976: A. J. YABLONSKY,.

    Google Scholar 

  45. T. E. HARRIS,The Theory of Branching Processes, Springer-Verlag, Berlin—Gottingen—Heidelberg, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  46. A. T. BHARUCHA-REID,Elements of the Theory of Markov Processes and their Applications, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York—Toronto—London, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  47. H. A. SIMON, On a class of skew distribution function,Biometrika, 42 (1955) 425.

    Google Scholar 

  48. G. X. YULE, A mathematical theory of evolution based on conclusions of dr. J. C. Willis,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 213 (1924) Ser. B, 21–87.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Price [See: D. de S. PRICE, A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes,Journal of the American Society for Informations Science, 27 (1976) No. 5, 292–306] obtained the same distribution on the basis of somewhat different considerations (depending, as well asSimon's approach on finding a stable solution of the finite difference equation for the dynamics of the author) calls it “the cumulative advantage distribution”.

    Google Scholar 

  50. A. J. YABLONSKY,op. cit., note 9. Statistical models of scientific activity. In:Systems Research Yearbook — 1975, Moscow, 1976.

  51. D. de SOLLAPRICE.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See, e.g., L. BRILLOUIN,Science and Information Theory, Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See, e.g., A. Avramescu, Contribution to the foundation of bibliometric laws,Studii si cercetarii de documentare, 15 (1973) No. 1.

  54. W. Goffman, K. S. Warren, Dispersion of papers among journals based of a mathematical analysis of two diverse literatures,Nature, 221 (1969) No. 5187.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Systems Studies, 29 Ryleyev Street, 119 034, Moscow, (USSR)

    A. I. Yablonsky

Authors
  1. A. I. Yablonsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yablonsky, A.I. On fundamental regularities of the distribution of scientific productivity. Scientometrics 2, 3–34 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016597

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016597

Keywords

Search

Navigation