Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science is principally driven by the efforts of a vanishingly small fraction of researchers publishing the majority of scientific research and garnering the majority of citations. Despite this well-established trend, knowledge of exactly how many articles these researchers publish, how highly they are cited, and how they achieved their distinctive accomplishments is meager. This article examines the publication and citation patterns of the world’s most highly cited environmental scientists and ecologists, inquiring into their levels of scientific productivity and visibility, examining relationships between scientific productivity and quality within their research programs, and considering how different publication strategies contribute to these distinctive successes. Generally speaking, highly cited researchers are also highly productive, publishing on average well over 100 articles each. Furthermore, articles published by this group are more highly cited on average than articles published in premier generalist journal like Nature and Science, and their citation to publication ratios are more equitably distributed than is typical. Research specialization and primacy of authorship are important determinants of citation frequency, while geographic differences and collaborative propensity matter less. The article closes with a set of suggestions for those wishing to increase the use of their research by the scientific community.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Every one of the top ten most highly cited environmental scientists and ecologist from 1997 to 2007 was also one of the most highly cited scientists in these fields from 1981 to 1999 (Thompson Reutars 2009).

  2. The age at which researchers receive their PhDs, enter the scientific work force and receive research funding has increased substantially in the past few decades (Goulden et al. 2009; Collins 2010). We therefore use ‘academic age’ (time since first publication) as an attempt to develop a general metric applicable across time.

  3. The set of ‘best fit’ journals comprises 84 titles, the most popular being Environmental Science and Technology (38 authors), Ecology (34) and Oecologia (25).

  4. i.e. those below and above the first and third quartiles in terms of numbers of journals in which they publish.

References

  • Asknes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, A. (2006). Using ISI’s ‘highly cited researchers’ to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence. Scientometrics, 68(3), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batty, M. (2003). The geography of scientific citation. Environment and Planning A, 35, 761–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsuk, R. M., Budden, A. E., Leimu, R., Aarson, L. W., & Lortie, C. J. (2009). The influence of author gender, national language and number of authors on citation rate in ecology. Open Ecology, 2, 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., & Weber, E. (2002). Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2847–2850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, F. (2010). Scientists need a shorter path to research freedom. Nature, 467(7316), 635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, W. (1955). Variations in productivity among creative workers. Scientific Monthly, 80, 277–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1973). More on forecasting Nobel Prizes and the most-cited scientists of 1972! Current Contents, 40, 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1981). The 1000 contemporary scientists most-cited 1965–1978. Part 1. The basic list and introduction. Current Contents, 41, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1984). The awards of science: beyond the Nobel Prize. Part 2. The winners and their most cited papers. Current Contents, 50, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1992). Of Nobel class, women in science, citation classics, and other essays. Current Contents, 35, 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulden, M., Frasch, K., & Mason, M. A. (2009). Staying Competitive: Patching America’s Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyett, M., & Parker, G. (2009). Can the highly cited psychiatric paper be predicted early? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(2), 173–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. N. (2007). The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics, 72, 513–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: research specialization as a missing link. Gender and Society, 20(6), 754–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E. (2007). Not by productivity alone: how visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 533–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E., Crockett, J. L., & Hunter, L. A. (2008). Gendered academic careers: specializing for success. Social Forces, 85(3), 1273–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. B. (2005a). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. B. (2005b). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55, 438–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimu, R., Lortie, C. J., Tregenza, T., Koricheva, J. Budden, A. E., & Aarssen, L.W. (2008). Does it pay to have a bigwig as a co-author? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 410–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81, 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., McKinlay, R. J., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2008). Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. BMJ, 336(7645), 655–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1986). Quantitative measures of communication in science. A study of the formal level. Social Studies of Science, 16, 151–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 435–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. M. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 5–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2005). Creative collaborations from afar: the benefits of independent authors. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaisen, J., & Hjørland, B. (2007). Practical potentials of Bradford’s law: a critical examination of the received view. Journal of Documentation, 63(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. P., Lortie, C. J., & Allesina, S. (2010a). Characterizing a scientific elite: The social characteristics of the world’s most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 85(1), 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. N., Vermeulen, N., & Penders, B. (2010b). Collaboration in the new life sciences. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, L., & Aliferis, C. (2008) Models for predicting and explaining citation count of biomedical articles. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings (Vol. 2008, pp. 222–226).

  • Thompson Reutars. (2009). http://sciencewatch.com/dr/sci/09/apr12-09_1D/ (Accessed Dec. 7, 2011).

  • Trifunac, M. D. (2006). On citation rates in earthquake engineering. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 36, 1049–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (2006). Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime- psychology journals: author impact versus journal impact. Scientometrics, 69(3), 499–510.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. (2000). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the research assessment exercises. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Barrett, The Honors College, Arizona State University, PO Box 871612, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    John N. Parker

  2. University of Chicago, Chicago, USA

    Stefano Allesina

  3. York University, Toronto, Canada

    Christopher J. Lortie

Authors
  1. John N. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefano Allesina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher J. Lortie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John N. Parker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parker, J.N., Allesina, S. & Lortie, C.J. Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics 94, 469–480 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0859-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0859-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation