Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bradford distributions of social-science bibliographies varying in definitional homogeneity

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Six social-science bibliographies were ranked along a complex ordinal dimension of the “homogeneity” of (1) the defining criteria for including items in a bibliography or (2) the disciplinary source(s) of the literature. The most homogeneous bibliography exhibited the classic linearity of the graphic form of Bradford's Law, but the most heterogeneous bibliographies exhibited concavity in their graphic display. The lower the overall article/journal density in a bibliography, the greater the curvature (concavity) of its Bradford plot. Results were discussed in relation to the generalizability of Bradford's Law and to differences between scholarly practices in the social and natural sciences.

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

Notes and References

  1. S. C. Bradford, Sources of information on specific subjects,Engineering, 137 (1934) 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. A. Fairthorne, Empirical hyperbolic distributions (Bradford-Zipf-Mandelbrot) for bibliometric description and prediction,Journal of Documentation, 25 (1969) 319–343.

    Google Scholar 

  3. F. F. Leimkuhler, The Bradford distribution,Journal of Documentation, 23 (1967) 197–207.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Y. S. Chen, F. F. Leimkuhler, Bradford's law: An index approach,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. F. F. Leimkuhler, An exact formulation of Bradford's law,Journal of Documentation, 36 (1980) 285–292.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Y. S. Chen, F. F. Leimkuhler, A relationship between Lotka's law, Bradford's law, and Zipf's law,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37 (1986) 307–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. L. Egghe, Consequences of Lotka's law for the Law of Bradford,Journal of Documentation, 41 (1985) 173–189.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. C. Brookes, Bradford's law and the bibliography of science,Nature, 224 (1969) 953–956.

    Google Scholar 

  9. L. Egghe, Application of the theory of Bradford's law to the calculation of Leimkuhler's law and to the completion of bibliographies,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (1990) 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. W. Goffman, T. Morris, Bradford's law and library acquisition,Nature, 226, (1970) 922–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. B. C. Brookes, Theory of the Bradford law,Journal of Documentation, 33 (1977) 180–209.

    Google Scholar 

  12. B. C. Brookes, Towards informetrics: Haitun, Laplace, Zipf, Bradford and the Alvey programme,Journal of Documentation, 40 (1984) 120–143.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. de Solla Price, A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27 (1976) 292–306.

    Google Scholar 

  14. But seeBrookes, “Towards informetrics,” pp. 128–130, as well as pp. 381–382 ofP. T. Nicholls, Bibliometric modeling processes and the empirical validity of Lotka's Law.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40 (1989) 379–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brookes, “Bibliography of science;” cf. p. 45 ofM. C. Drott, Bradford's law: Theory, empiricism and the gaps between,Library Trends, 30 (1981) 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. C. Drott, B. C. Griffith, An empirical examination of Bradford's law and the scattering of scientific literature,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29 (1978) 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  17. S. R. Coleman, S. Webster, The decline of a research specialty: Human eyelid conditioning in the late 1960s,Behavior and Philosophy, 18 (1990) 19–42.

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. R. Coleman, S. Webster, The problem of volition and the conditioned reflex, Part II: Voluntary-responding subjects, 1950–1980,Behaviorism, 16 (1988) 17–49.

    Google Scholar 

  19. S. R. Coleman, Contributions to the history of psychology: LXXX. The hyperbolic structure of eminence updated, 1975–1986,Psychological Reports, 68 (1991) 1067–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Ash, The self-presentation of a discipline: History of psychology in the United States between pedagogy and scholarship, In:L. Graham, W. Lepenies, P. Weingart (Eds),Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, Dordrecht, Holland, Reidel, 1983, pp. 143–189.

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Wertheimer, Historical research — Why?, In:J. Brozek, L. J. Pongratz (Eds),Historiography of Modern Psychology, Toronto, Hogrefe, 1980, pp. 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  22. T. S. Kuhn,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970, 2nd ed. with a postscript (1st ed, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  23. S. R. Coleman, R. Salamon, Kuhn'sStructure of Scientific Revolutions in the psychological journal literature, 1969–1983: A descriptive study,Journal of Mind and Behavior, 9 (1986) 415–445.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See the method section in:S. R. Coleman, P. Cola, S. Webster, Characteristics of the system of production of history-of-psychology literature, 1975–1986,International Journal of Psychology, 27 (1991) 110–124.

    Google Scholar 

  25. E. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, Molecular biology of learning: Modulation of transmitter release,Science, 218 (1982) 433–443.

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. F. Thompson, The neurobiology of learning and memory,Science, 233 (1986) 941–947.

    Google Scholar 

  27. W. Goffman, K. S. Warren, Dispersion of papers among journals based on a mathematical analysis of two diverse medical literatures,Nature, 221 (1969) 1205–1207.

    Google Scholar 

  28. E. R. Hilgard, D. E. Leary, G. R. McGuire, The history of psychology: A survey and critical assessment,Annual Review of Psychology, 42 (1991) 79–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. B. Berelson,Graduate Education in the United States, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  30. An illustration is provided by classification procedures atPsychological Abstracts in the period we examined. Categories of “History” and “History of Psychology” are used as indexing terms by this abstract journal. Distinguishing the two terms requires attention to the boundary of the discipline of psychology, and the problem is that the boundary has never been precise, single-criterion, and constant. As a result, publications assigned to the first category often appear to be suitable candidates for the second.

  31. G. L. Lewis, The relationship of conceptual development to consensus: An exploratory analysis of three subfields.Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 285–308.

    Google Scholar 

  32. L. Hargens,Patterns of Scientific Research: A Comparative Analysis of Research in Three Scientific Fields, Washington, DC, American Sociological Association, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See pages 143–145 ofS. E. Cozzens, Comparing the sciences: Citation contaxt analysis of papers from neuropharmacology and the sociology of science,Social Studies of science, 15 (1985) 127–153.

    Google Scholar 

  34. D. N. Wood, C. A. Bower, The use of social science periodical literature,Journal of Documentation, 25 (1969) 108–122.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Guide to Reference Books: Covering Material from 1985–1990 (supplement to 10th ed.),R. Balay (Ed.), Chicago, American Library Association, 1992; reference to p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  36. J. van Meurs,Jungian Literary Criticism. 1920–1980, Metuchen, NJ, Scarecrow, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology (Stilwell 217), Cleveland State University, Euclid Avenue at East 24th Street, 44115, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

    S. R. Coleman

Authors
  1. S. R. Coleman
    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

Coleman, S.R. Bradford distributions of social-science bibliographies varying in definitional homogeneity. Scientometrics 27, 75–91 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017756

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017756

Keywords

Search

Navigation