create a website

Skewed distributions of scientists’ productivity: a research program for the empirical analysis. (2024). Bornmann, Lutz.
In: Scientometrics.
RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04962-z.

Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

Cited: 1

Citations received by this document

Cites: 54

References cited by this document

Cocites: 23

Documents which have cited the same bibliography

Coauthors: 0

Authors who have wrote about the same topic

Citations

Citations received by this document

  1. Are there too many papers by the same authors within the same conference proceedings? Norms and extremities within the field of human–computer interaction. (2025). Sandnes, Frode Eika.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05271-9.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

References

References cited by this document

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2010). Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 132–140.

  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Soldatenkova, A. (2017). How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: Evidence from Italy. Scientometrics, 110(2), 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2193-x .

  3. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2005). Criteria used by a peer review committee for selection of research fellows: A Boolean probit analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(4), 296–303.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  4. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2012). The Anna Karenina principle: A way of thinking about success in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 2037–2051. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22661 .

  5. Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329 .

  6. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Mutz, R. (2021). Growth rates of modern science: A latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 224. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w .

  7. Brand, J., & Hardy, R. (2022). Editorial commentary: Causes of patient dissatisfaction may be modifiable. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 38(12), 3207–3208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.07.015 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  8. Braumoeller, B. F. (2003). Causal complexity and the study of politics. Political Analysis, 11(3), 209–233.

  9. Braumoeller, B. F. (2004). Boolean logit and probit in Stata. The Stata Journal, 4(4), 436–441.

  10. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. The University of Chicago Press.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  11. Costas, R., Bordons, M., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2009). Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 740–753.

  12. Diamond, J. (1994). Zebras and the Anna Karenina principle. Natural History, 103(9), 4–10.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  13. Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. W. W. Norton.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  14. Diem, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2013). The use of bibliometrics to measure research performance in education sciences. Research in Higher Education, 54(1), 86–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9264-5 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  15. Dong, Y., Ma, H., Shen, Z., & Wang, K. (2017). A century of science: Globalization of scientific collaborations, citations, and innovations. Paper presented at the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Association for Computing Machinery.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  16. Gilbride, T. J., & Allenby, G. M. (2004). A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Science, 23(3), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1030.0032 .

  17. Hammarfelt, B., Rushforth, A., & de Rijcke, S. (2020). Temporality in academic evaluation: ‘Trajectoral thinking’ in the assessment of biomedical researchers. Valuation Studies, 7, 33. https://doi.org/10.3384/VS.2001-5992.2020.7.1.33 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  18. Haslam, N., & Laham, S. M. (2010). Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 216–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.727 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  19. Hemlin, S. (1996). Research on research evaluations. Social Epistemology, 10(2), 209–250.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  20. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e101698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101698 .

  21. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2018). The scientists who publish a paper every five days. Nature, 561(7722), 167–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8 .

  22. Kroneberg, C. (2012). The rescue of Jews in WWII: An action-theoretic and empirical analysis. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 64(1), 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-012-0156-7 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  23. Kwiek, M. (2015). The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9910-x .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  24. Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2015). How many is too many? On the relationship between output and impact in research. In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), The 15th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 590–595). ISSI, Boaziçi University Printhouse.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  25. Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2016). How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0162709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162709 .

  26. Lee, D. H. (2019). Predicting the research performance of early career scientists. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1481–1504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03232-7 .

  27. Li, J., Yin, Y., Fortunato, S., & Wang, D. (2020). Scientific elite revisited: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 17(165), 20200135. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0135 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  28. Li, W. H., Aste, T., Caccioli, F., & Livan, G. (2019). Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13130-4 .

  29. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 12, 317–323.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  30. Marx, W., & Bornmann, L. (2010). How accurately does Thomas Kuhn’s model of paradigm change describe the transition from a static to a dynamic universe in cosmology? A historical reconstruction and citation analysis. Scientometrics, 84(2), 441–464.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  31. Marx, W., & Bornmann, L. (2013). The emergence of plate tectonics and the Kuhnian model of paradigm shift: A bibliometric case study based on the Anna Karenina principle. Scientometrics, 94(2), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0741-6 .

  32. McClay, A. S., & Balciunas, J. K. (2005). The role of pre-release efficacy assessment in selecting classical biological control agents for weeds: Applying the Anna Karenina principle. Biological Control, 35(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.05.018 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  33. Milojevic, S., Radicchi, F., & Walsh, J. P. (2018). Changing demographics of scientific careers: The rise of the temporary workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(50), 12616–12623. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800478115 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  34. Moore, D. R. J. (2001). The Anna Karenina principle applied to ecological risk assessments of multiple stressors. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7(2), 231–237.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  35. Nicholls, P. T. (1988). Price’s square root law: Empirical validity and relation to Lotka’s law. Information Processing & Management, 24(4), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(88)90049-0 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  36. Nielsen, M. W., & Andersen, J. P. (2021). Global Citation Inequality is on the Rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(7), e2012208118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012208118 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  37. Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613, 138–144.

  38. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  39. Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  40. Rescher, N. (1978). Scientific progress: A philosophical essay on the economics of research in natural science. Blackwell’s.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

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

  42. Shockley, W. (1957). On the statistics of individual variations of productivity in research laboratories. Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 45(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1109/Jrproc.1957.278364 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  43. Shugan, S. M. (2007). The Anna Karenina bias: Which variables to observe? Marketing Science, 26(2), 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1070.0274 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  44. Shugan, S. M., & Mitra, D. (2009). Metrics: When and why nonaveraging statistics work. Management Science, 55(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0907 .

  45. Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312), aaf5239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5239 .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  46. Sonnert, G. (1995). What makes a good scientist? Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 35–55.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  47. Tabah, A. N. (1999). Literature dynamics: Studies on growth, diffusion, and epidemics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 249–286.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  48. 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 .

  49. Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2019). What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1635–1684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03243-4 .

  50. van Raan, A. F. J. (1999). Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities. Scientometrics, 45(3), 417–423.

  51. van Raan, A. F. J. (2019). Measuring science: Basic principles and application of advanced bibliometrics. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 237–280). Springer International Publishing.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  52. Wang, D., & Barabási, A.-L. (2021). The science of science. Cambridge University Press.

  53. Weingartner, S. (2019). Multiple paths to the opera? The social structure of decision processes in cultural consumption. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 71(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-019-00593-y .
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

  54. Zalewska-Kurek, K., Geurts, P. A. T. M., & Roosendaal, H. E. (2010). The impact of the autonomy and interdependence of individual researchers on their production of knowledge and its impact: An empirical study of a nanotechnology institute. Research Evaluation, 19(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210x503474 .

Cocites

Documents in RePEc which have cited the same bibliography

  1. The definition of highly cited researchers: the effect of different approaches on the empirical outcome. (2025). Bornmann, Lutz ; Frietsch, Rainer ; Gruber, Sonia.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05158-1.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  2. Reliable individual differences in researcher performance capacity estimates: evaluating productivity as explanatory variable. (2025). Mutz, Rdiger ; Beisemann, Marie ; Forthmann, Boris ; Doebler, Philipp.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05210-0.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  3. Skewed distributions of scientists’ productivity: a research program for the empirical analysis. (2024). Bornmann, Lutz.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04962-z.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  4. Hierarchical Bayesian model to estimate and compare research productivity of Italian academic statisticians. (2024). Negri, Ilia ; Mezzetti, Maura.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05154-5.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  5. Top research performance in Poland over three decades: A multidimensional micro-data approach. (2024). Roszka, Wojciech ; Kwiek, Marek.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:18:y:2024:i:4:s175115772400107x.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  6. The moderating role of personal characteristics of authors in the publications’ quality for quantity trade-off. (2024). Abramo, Giovanni ; di Costa, Flavia ; D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:18:y:2024:i:1:s1751157724000087.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  7. Quantity versus quality in publication activity: knowledge production at the regional level. (2023). Gareev, Timur ; Peker, Irina.
    In: Papers.
    RePEc:arx:papers:2311.08830.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  8. Are the strategic research agendas of researchers in the social sciences determinants of research productivity?. (2022). Santos, Joo M ; Horta, Hugo ; Li, Huan.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04324-7.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  9. The impact of top scientists on the community development of basic research directed by government funding: evidence from program 973 in China. (2021). Liu, Tiezhong ; Dong, Jinyang.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04092-w.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  10. Women in innovation processes as a solution to climate change: A systematic literature review and an agenda for future research. (2021). Leloarne-Lemaire, Severine ; Razgallah, Meriam ; Bertrand, Gael ; Kallmuenzer, Andreas ; Maalaoui, Adnane.
    In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
    RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:164:y:2021:i:c:s004016252031266x.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  11. Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway. (2021). Abramo, Giovanni ; Aksnes, Dag W ; Dangelo, Ciriaco Andrea.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:2:s1751157721000158.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  12. The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence from academic promotions to full professor in Italy. (2018). Meschitti, Viviana ; Marini, Giulio.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2696-8.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  13. High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers?. (2018). Kwiek, Marek.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2644-7.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  14. And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing. (2017). Allesina, Stefano ; Michalska-Smith, Matthew J.
    In: PLOS ONE.
    RePEc:plo:pone00:0178074.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  15. Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data. (2017). Bornmann, Lutz ; Williams, Richard.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:3:p:788-799.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  16. The dispersion of the citation distribution of top scientists’ publications. (2016). Abramo, Giovanni ; Dangelo, Ciriaco Andrea ; Soldatenkova, Anastasiia.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2143-7.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  17. The information value of early career productivity in mathematics: a ROC analysis of prediction errors in bibliometricly informed decision making. (2016). Danell, Rickard ; Lindahl, Jonas.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2097-9.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  18. Quantifying the scientific output of new researchers using the zp-index. (2016). Peterson, Jordan B ; Zou, Christopher.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1807-z.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  19. A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS. (2016). Abramo, Giovanni ; Dangelo, Ciriaco Andrea.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:10:y:2016:i:4:p:889-901.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  20. Positive correlation between quality and quantity in academic journals. (2016). Huang, Ding-Wei.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:10:y:2016:i:2:p:329-335.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  21. How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. (2014). Bornmann, Lutz ; Marx, Werner.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1161-y.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  22. Productivity analysis of research in Natural Sciences, Technology and Clinical Medicine: an input–output model applied in comparison of Top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian countries. (2013). Kaipainen, Paivi ; Kivinen, Osmo ; Hedman, Juha.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0808-4.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  23. The field-standardized average impact of national research systems compared to world average: the case of Italy. (2011). Abramo, Giovanni ; Viel, Fulvio ; Dangelo, Ciriaco Andrea.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:88:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0406-x.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

Coauthors

Authors registered in RePEc who have wrote about the same topic

Report date: 2025-10-03 21:33:16 || Missing content? Let us know

CitEc is a RePEc service, providing citation data for Economics since 2001. Last updated August, 3 2024. Contact: Jose Manuel Barrueco.