Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Productivity differences fields of learning, and Lotka's law

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper examines whether productivity differences among individual researchers are larger in some fields of learning than in others. Productivity patterns in the natural sciences, the medical sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities are compared by the use of unweighted and weighted publication counts. Irrespective of whether total number of publications or a refined indicator taking account of type of publication and multiple authorship are used, there are no essential differences in publishing inequality between the various fields. About 20% of the tenured faculty at Norwegian universities produce 50% of the total output, and the most prolific half of the researchers account for almost 85% of the output. The results are discussed in relation to Lotka's law.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. J. LOTKA, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity,Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16 (1926) 317.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. VLACHY, Frequency distribution of scientific performance: a bibliography of Lotka's law and related phenomena,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 109.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. De SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. G. POTTER, Lotka's law revisited,Library Trends, 30 (1981) 21.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. D. ALLISON,Processes of Stratification in Science, Arno Press, New York, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. L. PAO, Lotka's law: a testing procedure,Information Processing and Management, 21 (1985) 305.

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. GLÄNZEL, A. SCHUBERT, Price distribution. An exact formulation of Price's “square root law”,Scientometrics 7 (1985) 211.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. R. COLE, S. COLE,Social Stratification in Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P. D. ALLISON, J. A. STEWART, Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage,American Sociological Review, 39 (1974) 596.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. TROW, O. FULTON, Research activity in American higher education, in:Teachers and Students. Aspects of American Higher Education, M. TROW (Ed.), McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. F. RESKIN, Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science,American Sociological Review, 42 (1977) 491.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. GASTON,The Reward System in British and American Science, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. R. COLE,Fair Science. Women in the Scientific Community, The Free Press, New York, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. R. COLE, H. ZUCKERMAN, The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists, in:Advances in Motivation and Achievement, P. MAEHR, M. W. STEINKAMP (Eds.), 2 (1984) 217, JAI Press.

  15. L. J. MURPHY, Lotka's law in the humanities?Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24 (1973) 461.

    Google Scholar 

  16. UNESCO,Recommendations concerning the international standardization of statistics on science and technology, UNESCO, Paris, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. De SOLLA PRICE, de B. BEAVER, Collaboration in an invisible college,American Psychologist, 21 (1966) 1011.

    Google Scholar 

  18. H. ZUCKERMAN, Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers: A study of social symbolism and its ambiquity,American Journal of Sociology, 74 (1968) 276.

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. RUDD, The effect of alphabetical order of author listing on the careers of scientists,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 268.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E. GARFIELD, More on the ethics of scientific publication: abuses of authorship attribution and citation amnesia undermine the reward system of science, in: E. GARFIELD,Essays of an information scientist, 5 (1982) 621.

  21. G. ARNISON, et al, Experimental observation of lepton pairs of invariant mass around 95 GeV/c2 at the CERN SPS collider,Physics Letters 126b (1983) 398.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. E. NUDELMAN, C. E. LANDERS, The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 33-1/3,The American Sociologist, 7 (1972) 9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. H. ZUCKERMAN, R. K. MERTON, Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and function of the referee system,Minerva, 9 (1971) 66.

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. D. GORDON, A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication,Scientometrics, 2 (1980) 193.

    Google Scholar 

  25. S. PRESSER, Collaboration and the quality of research,Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 95.

    Google Scholar 

  26. S. M. LAWANI, Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 13.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D. LINDSEY, Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship,Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 145.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. S. LONG, R. McGINNIS, P. D. ALLISON, The problem of junior-authored papers in constructing citation counts,Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 127.

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. LINDSEY, Further evidence for adjusting for multiple authorship,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 389.

    Google Scholar 

  30. P. D. ALLISON, Inequality and scientific productivity,Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 163.

    Google Scholar 

  31. S. KYVIK,Arbeidsoppgaver og arbeidstid, Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education, Oslo, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  32. M. L. PAO, An empirical examination of Lotka's law,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37 (1986) 26.

    Google Scholar 

  33. T. AMUNDSEN, S. KYVIK, D. A. AAS-ENG, Publication and citation performance of Norwegian scientists in terrestrial ecology and systematics, in:International Evaluations. Terrestrial Ecology and Systematics in Norway, Council for Natural Science Research, Oslo, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education, The Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities, Munthesgt. 29, 0260, Oslo 2, (Norway)

    S. Kyvik

Authors
  1. S. Kyvik
    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

Kyvik, S. Productivity differences fields of learning, and Lotka's law. Scientometrics 15, 205–214 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017199

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017199

Keywords

Search

Navigation