Skip to main content
Log in

The representative works of scientists

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nowadays identifying the personal representative works is becoming increasingly important and necessary for scientists in many cases, such as faculty hiring and promotion applications. There are already a few methods based on different criteria for selecting the representative works of a scientist, like citation count. In addition, we can observe that some researchers always produce many similar quality scientific papers and some researchers have several highly cited papers compared with his or her other papers. In this context, we propose to use the maximum gap in a histogram of a scientist’s sorted papers’ citation counts to classify his or her papers into two groups, i.e. representative papers and regular papers. Based on the maximum gap, we then design an indicator \(D_{r}\) to quantify the impact difference between scientist’s representative works and regular works. We apply this selection method and \(D_{r}\) index into the data of American Physical Society (APS) journals. The results indicate that the selection method can better identify the representative works of Nobel laureates in Physics compared with using the most cited paper. We also find that the number of representative works selected by our method is related to \(D_{r}\). A larger number of selected papers would appear when the value of \(D_{r}\) index is relatively smaller. Meanwhile, we also observe that \(D_{r}\) is weakly correlated with the h index and total citation.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bao, P., & Wang, J. (2018). Identifying your representative work based on credit allocation. Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference, 2018, 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bao, P., & Zhai, C. (2017). Dynamic credit allocation in scientific literature. Scientometrics, 112(1), 595–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, C.T., Foster, J. G., & Song, Y. (2016). Why scientists chase big problems: Individual strategy and social optimality. Preprint at arXiv:1605.05822.

  • Clauset, A., Arbesman, S., & Larremore, D. B. (2015). Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Science Advances, 1(1), e1400005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiala, D., Šubelj, L., Žitnik, S., & Bajec, M. (2015). Do PageRank-based author rankings outperform simple citation counts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 334–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 875–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J., Boyack, K. W., Small, H., Sorensen, A. A., & Klavans, R. (2014). Bibliometrics: Is your most cited work your best? Nature News, 514(7524), 561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, P. O., & Von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., & Zhang, Y. C. (2016). Identification of milestone papers through time-balanced network centrality. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1207–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medo, M., & Cimini, G. (2016). Model-based evaluation of scientific impact indicators. Physical Review E, 94(3), 032312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, Q., Zhou, J., Zeng, A., Fan, Y., & Di, Z. (2016). Which publication is your representative work? Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 842–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17268–17272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlagberger, E. M., Bornmann, L., & Bauer, J. (2016). At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014. Scientometrics, 109(2), 723–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, H. W., & Barabási, A. L. (2014). Collective credit allocation in science. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(34), 12325–12330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312), aaf5239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, A., Shen, Z., Zhou, J., Wu, J., Fan, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2017). The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports, 714–715, 1–73.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61603046 and 61374175) and the Natural Science Foundation of Beijing (Grant No. L160008).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to An Zeng or Ying Fan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, J., Zeng, A., Fan, Y. et al. The representative works of scientists. Scientometrics 117, 1721–1732 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2918-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2918-0

Keywords

Navigation