Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The “rank distortion” effect and non-Gaussian nature of scientific activities

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The “rank distortion” of statistical distribution and its effect on the non-Gaussian nature of scientific activities is discussed. Examples are presented and in particular, the dispersion of publications by journals (the Bradford distribution) is discussed in detail. The data supporting the thesis of non-Gaussian nature of science are reexamined, and the empirical basis of the thesis is extended.

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. D. HAITUN, Stationary scientometric distributions. Part 1. The different approximations,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 5–25; Part II. Non-Gaussian nature of scientific activities. —Scientometrics 4 (1982) 89–104; Part III. The role of the Zipf distribution. —Scientometrics 4 (1982) 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. S. D. HAITUN, op. cit. Note 1 ;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. See, for example, A. I. YABLONSKY, Stokhasticheskiye modeli nauchnoi deyatelnosti (Stochastic models of research activities). in:Sistemniye issledovaniya, Yezhegodnik, 1975.System Research, Yearbook, 1975), Nauka, Moscow, 1976, p. 5–42; A. I. YABLONSKY, On fundamental regularities of the distribution of scientific productivity,Scientometrics 2 (1980) 3–34.

    Google Scholar 

  4. This error is made by the present author in Ref. 1, see S. D. HAITUN, op. cit., Note 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. J. H. WESTBROOK, Identifying significant research,Science, 132 (1960) 1229–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  6. B. HILL, Zipf's law and prior distribution for the composition of a population,J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 65 (1970) 1220–1232.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See S. D. HAITUN, op. cit. note 1, Fig. 2.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. S. D. HAITUN, op. cit., note 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S. C. BRADFORD, Sources of information on specific subjects,Engineering, 26 (1934) January; S. C. Bradford Documentation, London, Grosby Lookwood and Son Ltd, 1948.

  10. F. F. LEIMKUHLER, The Bradford distribution,J. Docum., 23 (1967) 197–207; F. F. LEIMKUHLER, Operational analysis of library systems,Information and Management, 13 (1977) 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. C. BROOKES, The derivation and application of the Bradford-Zipf distribution,J. Docum., 24 (1968) 247–265; B. C. BROOKES, Bradford's law and the bibliography of science,Nature, 224 (1969) 953–956; B. C. BROOKES. Theory of the Bradford law,J. Docum., 33 (1977) 180–209.

    Google Scholar 

  12. O. V. GROOS, Bradford's law and the Keenan-Atherton data,Amer. Docum., 19 (1967) 46.

    Google Scholar 

  13. These approximations are presented in: S. D. HAITUN, op. cit., note 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. W. GOFFMAN, K. S. WARREN, Dispersion of papers among journals based on a mathematical analysis of the diverse medical literatures,Nature, 22 (1969) 1205–1207.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See S. D. HAITUN, op. cit, note 1 182.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. COLE, J. R. COLE, Visibility and the structural bases of awareness of scientific research,Am. Sociol. Rev., 33 (1968) 397–483; B. V. DEAN, Evaluating Selecting and Controlling R & D Projects,American Management Association, Inc. 1968; N. C. MULLINS, The distribution of social and cultural properties in informal communication network among biological scientists,Am. Sociol. Rev. 33 (1968) 781–797; D. CRANE, Social structure in a group of scientists; A test of the “invisible college” hypothesis,Am. Sociol. Rev., 34 (1969) 335–352; W. GOFFMAN, K. S. WARREN, op. cit., note 17;Dispersion of papers among journals based on a mathematical analysis of the diverse medical literatures,Nature, 22 (1969) 1205–1207; S. CRAWFORD, Informal communication among scientists in sleep research,Am. Soc. Inform. Sci., 22 (1971) 301–310; D. CRANE,Invisible colleges, Chicago-London, 1972; R. K. MERTON,The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973;Problemy Deyatelnosti uchenogo i nauchnykh kollektivov (Problems of scientists and scientific organization activities). Iss. 5, Leningrad, Nauka, 1973; Iss. 6, Moscow, Leningrad, Nauka, 1977; Iss. 7, Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1979; S. S. BLUME, R. SINCLAIR, Aspects of the structure of a scientific discipline, in: Social Processes of Scientific Development. R. WHITLEY Ed. Boston-London, 1974, p. 224–241;Sotsiologicheskiye problemy nauki (Sociology of science, Moscow, Nauka, 1974; N. S. ENDLER, J. P. RUSHTON, H. L. ROEDINGER. Productivity and scholary impact (citation) of British, Canadian and U.S. departments of psychology (1975),Am. Psychol, 33 (1978) 1064–1082; R. E. EVENSON, Y. KISLEY.Agricultural research and productivity, New Hawen, Yale University Press, 1975; K. D. KNORR. The nature of scientific consensus and the case of the social sciences, in:Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Boston, 1975, p. 227–256;Narodnoye Khozyaystvo SSSR v 1975 g. (Economics of the USSR in 1975), Moscow, Statistika, 1976; B. C. FREEMAN, Faculty women in the American university: up the down staircase,Higher Education, 6 (1977) 165–188; H. ZUCKERMAN.Scientific elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States, Free Press, N.Y., 1977; B. LUBIN, R. G. NATHAN, J. D. MATARAZZO. Psychologists in medical education, 1976,Am. Psychol., 33 (1978) 339–343; Sotsialnoye upravleniye v nauke (Social management in science). Moscow ISI AN SSSR, 1978; H. INHABER, M. S. LIPSETT. Gaps in “Gaps in technology” and other innovation inventories,Scientometrics, 1 (1979) 85–98;Scientific Productivity, F. M. ANDREWS Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, and UNESCO, Cambridge, Paris, 1979;Sociology of Science and Research, J. FARKAS Ed. Budapest Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979; M. P. CARPENTER, F. NARIN. The subject composition of the world's scientific journals,Scientometrics 2 (1980) 53–83; A. HEERINGEN. Dutch research groups, output and collaboration,Scientometrics, 3 (1981) 205–315.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. S. COLEMAN,Introduction to mathematical sociology, Free Press of Glencoe, N. Y., 1964;Sotsiologiya v SSSR (Sociology in the USSR), v. 1, 2 Moscow, Mysl, 1966; F. EDDING, D. BERSTECHER,International developments of educational expenditure 1950–1965, UNESCO, Paris, 1969; B. HILL, op. cit., note 9; M. G. BULMER, On fitting the Poission longormal distribution to species abundance data,Biometrics, 30 (1974) 101–110; R. MORGAN, E. E. IRONS, E. A. PEREZ, T. N. SOULE, A. K. FRIEDScience and Technology for Development, N. Y., Pergamon Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See S. D. HAITUN, op. cit., note 1, p. 190–191.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See S. D. HAITUN, op. cit., note 1 p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of History of Science and Technology, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Staropansky per., 1/5, Moscow, USSR

    S. D. Haitun

Authors
  1. S. D. Haitun
    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

Haitun, S.D. The “rank distortion” effect and non-Gaussian nature of scientific activities. Scientometrics 5, 375–395 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02134325

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02134325

Keywords

Search

Navigation