Abstract
Citations play an essential role in creating a knowledge network and recognizing relevant contributions during the process of scientific production. Despite the citations establishing the links between new evidence and the preceding ideas, classic articles may not be cited adequately. Our aim is to identify if classic studies are cited over time and if the recent studies are producing new knowledge or just “giving a new look” to pre-existing ideas. We evaluated whether the theory proposed by Brooks and Dodson (Science 150(3692): 28–35, 1965)-Size-efficiency Hypothesis was referenced in studies on the subject since its publication. Through the analysis of 1480 scientific papers, we quantified—from 1965 to 2018—the citation index (CI) of the original article considering the number of articles produced on the topic per year and the number of citations to other authors (intermediaries). We observed that 60% of the papers and 59% of the intermediaries do not refer to the original article. The CI was low and negatively affected by the age of the original article, showing that the frequency of citation was lower than the rate by which articles on the topic were published. There is a tendency to cite more recent articles and articles that corroborate their own findings. Our data illustrated the microwave effect, in which pre-existing ideas and theories are “reheated” by more recent articles where little of the original idea is modified. The microwave effect can create the impression of scientific advancement when there is little being added to the knowledge already produced.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Assante, M., Candela, L., Castelli, D., & Tani, A. (2016). Are scientific data repositories coping with research data publishing? Data Science Journal, 15, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2016-006
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
Brooks, J. L., & Dodson, S. I. (1965). Predation, body size and composition of plankton. Science, 150(3692), 28–35.
Burton, R. E. (1960). Scientific a N D Technical Literatures, XI, 18–22.
Caliman, A., Pires, A. F., Esteves, F. A., Bozelli, R. L., & Farjalla, V. F. (2010). The prominence of and biases in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9725.
Case, D. O., & Higgins, G. M. (2000). How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(7), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:7%3c635::AID-ASI6%3e3.0.CO;2-H
Das, N., & Panjabi, M. (2011). Plagiarism: Why is it such a big issue for medical writers? Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.80370
Doubleday, Z. A., & Connell, S. D. (2017). Publishing with objective charisma: Breaking science’s paradox. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 32(11), 803–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.06.011
Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221(3), 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1965.tb00470.x
Ellery, K. (2008). An investigation into electronic-source plagiarism in a first-year essay assignment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(6), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701772788
Erikson, M. G., & Erlandson, P. (2014). A taxonomy of motives to cite. Social Studies of Science, 44(4), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714522871
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf
Fowler, J. H., & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72(3), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1777-2
Garfield, E. (1962). Can citation indexing be automated. In Essays of an information scientist (Vol. 1, pp. 84–90).
Gilbert, N. G. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122.
Glanzel, W., Czerwon, H. J., Glanzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1992). What are highly cited publications? A method applied to German scientific papers, 1980–1989. Research Evaluation, 2(3), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/rev/2.3.135
Gliwicz, Z. M., & Pijanowska, J. (1980). The role of predation in zooplankton succession. In U. Sommer (Ed.), Plankton ecology (pp. 253–296). Springer.
Hamilton, D. P. (1991). Research papers: Who’s uncited now? Science, 251(4989), 25. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1986409
Hicks, D., & Potter, J. (1991). Sociology of scientific knowledge: A reflexive citation analysis or science disciplines and disciplining science. Social Studies of Science, 21(3), 459–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631291021003003
Hrbáček, J. (1958). Density of the fish population as a factor influencing the distribution and speciation of the species in the genus Daphnia. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Zoology, Section X. Paper 27 (pp. 794–795).
Hrbáček, J. (1962). Species composition and the amount of the zooplankton in relation to the fish stock. Rozpravy Ceskoslovenske Akademie Ved Rada mathematicko-prirodvedecka, 72(13), 1–65.
Hrbáček, J., Dvořáková, M., Kořínek, V., & Procházková, L. (1961). Demonstration of the effect of the fish stock on the species composition of zooplankton and the intensity of metabolism of the whole plankton association. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereingung fur Theoretische und Angewandeten Limnologie, 14, 192–195.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., Rynes, S. L., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. M. Y. E., & Rynes, S. L. (2007). Whar causes a manamgement article to be cited? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 491–506.
Kamat, P. V. (2018). Most cited versus uncited papers. What do they tell us? ACS Energy Letters, 3(9), 2134–2135. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.8b01443
Ke, Q., Ferrara, E., Radicchi, F., & Flammini, A. (2015). Defining and identifying sleeping beauties in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(24), 7426–7431. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424329112
Kostoff, R. N. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 43(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458392
Kumari, L. (2006). Trends in synthetic organic chemistry research. Cross-country comparison of Activity Index. Scientometrics, 67, 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.8.
Landhuis, E. (2016). Scientific literature: Information overload. Nature, 535(7612), 457–458.
Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010
Li, J., & Ye, F. Y. (2012). The phenomenon of all-elements-sleeping-beauties in scientific literature. Scientometrics, 92(3), 795–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0643-7
Lin, D., Crabtree, J., Dillo, I., Downs, R. R., Edmunds, R., Giaretta, D., et al. (2020). The TRUST principles for digital repositories. Scientific Data, 7(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7
Lynn, F. B. (2014). Diffusing through disciplines: Insiders, outsiders, and socially influenced citation behavior. Social Forces, 93(1), 355–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou069
Mammola, S. (2020). On deepest caves, extreme habitats, and ecological superlatives. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 35(6), 469–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.02.011
Mammola, S., Fontaneto, D., Martínez, A., & Chichorro, F. (2021). Impact of the reference list features on the number of citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 785–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03759-0
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-malea, E., López-cózar, E. D., & Martín-martín, A. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177.
May, K. O. (1967). Abuses of citation indexing. Science, 156(3777), 890–892. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.156.3777.890-a
Mayr, E. (1997). The science of the living world. Universities Press.
Nash, J. R., Araújo, R. J., & Shideler, G. S. (2018). Contributing factors to long-term citation count in marine and freshwater biology articles. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1136
Nicolaisen, J., & Frandsen, T. F. (2019). Zero impact: A large-scale study of uncitedness. Scientometrics, 119(2), 1227–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03064-5
Nicolaisen, J., & Frandsen, T. F. (2020). Number of references: A large-scale study of interval ratios. Scientometrics, 126(1), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03764-3
Padial, A. A., Nabout, J. C., Siqueira, T., Bini, L. M., & Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. (2010). Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles. Scientometrics, 85(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0231-7
Penders, B. (2018). Ten simple rules for responsible referencing. PLoS Computational Biology, 14(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006036
Pennington, W. (1941). The control of the numbers of freshwater phytoplankton by small invertebrate animals. Journal of Ecology, 29(2), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/2256390.
Scheiner, S. M., & Willig, M. R. (2005). Developing unified theories in ecology as exemplified with diversity gradients. American Naturalist, 166(4), 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1086/444402
Sommer, U. (1989). Plankton ecology. Springer.
Stent, G. S. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227(6), 84–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24922939.
Taborsky, M. (2009). Biased citation practice and taxonomic parochialism. Ethology, 115(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01610.x
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.002
Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2
van Mil, J. W. F., & Green, J. (2017). Citations and science. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 39(5), 977–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-017-0539-y
Van Noorden, A. F. (2013). The true cost of science publishing. Nature News, 495(7442), 426.
Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1
Voit, E. O. (2019). Perspective: Dimensions of the scientific method. The traditional scientific method: Hypothesis-driven deduction. Plos Computational Biology, 15(9), 1–14.
Wang, P., & White, M. D. (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 98–114.
Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0
Weinberger, C. J., Evans, J. A., & Allesina, S. (2015). Ten simple (Empirical) rules for writing science. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(4), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004205
Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation analysis: A comparison of google scholar, scopus, and web of science. Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting, 43(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301185
Zaret, T. M. (1980). Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Rayanne Barros Setubal and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Research involving human and animal rights
This research does not involve human or animal participants. All information used in this study was obtained from scientific databases.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Setubal, R.B., da Silva Farias, D., Nova, C.C. et al. Microwave effect: analyzing citations from classic theories and their reinventions—a case study from a classic paper in aquatic ecology—Brooks & Dodson, 1965. Scientometrics 127, 4751–4767 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04459-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04459-7