-
More religion means less science. An International comparison of the relations between religious beliefs and levels of and attitudes to scientific knowledge
Authors:
Yves Gingras,
Kristoff Talin
Abstract:
This research presents the results of a comparative analysis of the links between religious practices and beliefs and levels of scientific knowledge. Based on secondary analyses of survey data in the European Union (Eurobarometers 2005 and 2010) and the United States (Pew Research Center 2018), we show that, regardless of the country, correlations suggest that the more individuals identify with a…
▽ More
This research presents the results of a comparative analysis of the links between religious practices and beliefs and levels of scientific knowledge. Based on secondary analyses of survey data in the European Union (Eurobarometers 2005 and 2010) and the United States (Pew Research Center 2018), we show that, regardless of the country, correlations suggest that the more individuals identify with a religion and the more intensely they practice that religion, the less scientifically literate they are, as measured in standard tests. Moreover, scientific representations are also related to individual religious outlook. The more individuals adhere to a religion, the less they have positive attitudes towards science. The conclusion suggests possible interpretations of theses correlations.
△ Less
Submitted 24 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
The weakening relationship between the Impact Factor and papers' citations in the digital age
Authors:
George A. Lozano,
Vincent Lariviere,
Yves Gingras
Abstract:
Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published but in the electronic age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or Impact Factor. We compare the strength of the relationship between…
▽ More
Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published but in the electronic age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or Impact Factor. We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' Impact Factors and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' Impact Factors. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the strength of the relation between Impact Factors and paper citations has been decreasing. This decrease began sooner in physics, a field that was quicker to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990, the proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing, and accordingly, the proportion of highly cited papers not coming from highly cited journals has also been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the Impact Factor as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers and researchers.
△ Less
Submitted 19 May, 2012;
originally announced May 2012.
-
A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices
Authors:
Matthew L. Wallace,
Vincent Larivière,
Yves Gingras
Abstract:
This paper examines the proximity of authors to those they cite using degrees of separation in a co-author network, essentially using collaboration networks to expand on the notion of self-citations. While the proportion of direct self-citations (including co-authors of both citing and cited papers) is relatively constant in time and across specialties in the natural sciences (10% of citations) an…
▽ More
This paper examines the proximity of authors to those they cite using degrees of separation in a co-author network, essentially using collaboration networks to expand on the notion of self-citations. While the proportion of direct self-citations (including co-authors of both citing and cited papers) is relatively constant in time and across specialties in the natural sciences (10% of citations) and the social sciences (20%), the same cannot be said for citations to authors who are members of the co-author network. Differences between fields and trends over time lie not only in the degree of co-authorship which defines the large-scale topology of the collaboration network, but also in the referencing practices within a given discipline, computed by defining a propensity to cite at a given distance within the collaboration network. Overall, there is little tendency to cite those nearby in the collaboration network, excluding direct self-citations. By analyzing these social references, we characterize the social capital of local collaboration networks in terms of the knowledge production within scientific fields. These results have implications for the long-standing debate over biases common to most types of citation analysis, and for understanding citation practices across scientific disciplines over the past 50 years. In addition, our findings have important practical implications for the availability of 'arm's length' expert reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts.
△ Less
Submitted 27 July, 2011;
originally announced July 2011.
-
The impact factor's Matthew effect: a natural experiment in bibliometrics
Authors:
Vincent Lariviere,
Yves Gingras
Abstract:
Since the publication of Robert K. Merton's theory of cumulative advantage in science (Matthew Effect), several empirical studies have tried to measure its presence at the level of papers, individual researchers, institutions or countries. However, these studies seldom control for the intrinsic "quality" of papers or of researchers--"better" (however defined) papers or researchers could receive…
▽ More
Since the publication of Robert K. Merton's theory of cumulative advantage in science (Matthew Effect), several empirical studies have tried to measure its presence at the level of papers, individual researchers, institutions or countries. However, these studies seldom control for the intrinsic "quality" of papers or of researchers--"better" (however defined) papers or researchers could receive higher citation rates because they are indeed of better quality. Using an original method for controlling the intrinsic value of papers--identical duplicate papers published in different journals with different impact factors--this paper shows that the journal in which papers are published have a strong influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers published in high impact journals obtain, on average, twice as much citations as their identical counterparts published in journals with lower impact factors. The intrinsic value of a paper is thus not the only reason a given paper gets cited or not; there is a specific Matthew effect attached to journals and this gives to paper published there an added value over and above their intrinsic quality.
△ Less
Submitted 21 August, 2009;
originally announced August 2009.
-
On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact
Authors:
Vincent Lariviere,
Yves Gingras
Abstract:
This paper analyzes the effect of interdisciplinarity on the scientific impact of individual papers. Using all the papers published in Web of Science in 2000, we define the degree of interdisciplinarity of a given paper as the percentage of its cited references made to journals of other disciplines. We show that, although for all disciplines combined there is no clear correlation between the lev…
▽ More
This paper analyzes the effect of interdisciplinarity on the scientific impact of individual papers. Using all the papers published in Web of Science in 2000, we define the degree of interdisciplinarity of a given paper as the percentage of its cited references made to journals of other disciplines. We show that, although for all disciplines combined there is no clear correlation between the level of interdisciplinarity of papers and their citation rates, there are nonetheless some disciplines in which a higher level of interdisciplinarity is related to a higher citation rates. For other disciplines, citations decline as interdisciplinarity grows. One characteristic is visible in all disciplines: highly disciplinary and highly interdisciplinary papers have a low scientific impact. This suggests that there might be an optimum of interdisciplinarity beyond which the research is too dispersed to find its niche and under which it is too mainstream to have high impact. Finally, the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact is highly determined by the citation characteristics of the disciplines involved: papers citing citation intensive disciplines are more likely to be cited by those disciplines and, hence, obtain higher citation scores than papers citing non citation intensive disciplines.
△ Less
Submitted 12 August, 2009;
originally announced August 2009.
-
On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007)
Authors:
Vincent Lariviere,
Yves Gingras
Abstract:
The issue of duplicate publications has received a lot of attention in the medical literature, but much less in the information science community. This paper aims at analyzing the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications across all fields of research between 1980 and 2007, using a definition of duplicate papers based on their metadata. It shows that in all fields combined, the…
▽ More
The issue of duplicate publications has received a lot of attention in the medical literature, but much less in the information science community. This paper aims at analyzing the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications across all fields of research between 1980 and 2007, using a definition of duplicate papers based on their metadata. It shows that in all fields combined, the prevalence of duplicates is one out of two-thousand papers, but is higher in the natural and medical sciences than in the social sciences and humanities. A very high proportion (>85%) of these papers are published the same year or one year apart, which suggest that most duplicate papers were submitted simultaneously. Furthermore, duplicate papers are generally published in journals with impact factors below the average of their field and obtain a lower number of citations. This paper provides clear evidence that the prevalence of duplicate papers is low and, more importantly, that the scientific impact of such papers is below average.
△ Less
Submitted 22 June, 2009;
originally announced June 2009.
-
The effects of aging of scientists on their publication and citation patterns
Authors:
Yves Gingras,
Vincent Lariviere,
Benoit Macaluso,
Jean-Pierre Robitaille
Abstract:
The average age at which U.S. researchers get their first grant from NIH has increased from 34.3 in 1970, to 41.7 in 2004. These data raise the crucial question of the effects of aging on the scientific creativity and productivity of researchers. Those who worry about the aging of scientists usually believe that the younger they are the more creative and productive they will be. Using a large po…
▽ More
The average age at which U.S. researchers get their first grant from NIH has increased from 34.3 in 1970, to 41.7 in 2004. These data raise the crucial question of the effects of aging on the scientific creativity and productivity of researchers. Those who worry about the aging of scientists usually believe that the younger they are the more creative and productive they will be. Using a large population of 13,680 university professors in Quebec, we show that, while scientific productivity rises sharply between 28 and 40, it increases at a slower pace between 41 and 50 and stabilizes afterward until retirement for the most active researchers. The average scientific impact per paper decreases linearly until 50-55 years old, but the average number of papers in highly cited journals and among highly cited papers rises continuously until retirement. Our results clearly show for the first time the natural history of the scientific productivity of scientists over their entire career and bring to light the fact that researchers over 55 still contribute significantly to the scientific community by producing high impact papers.
△ Less
Submitted 23 October, 2008;
originally announced October 2008.
-
Modeling a Century of Citation Distributions
Authors:
Matthew L. Wallace,
Vincent Larivière,
Yves Gingras
Abstract:
Changes in citation distributions over 100 years can reveal much about the evolution of the scientific communities or disciplines. The prevalence of uncited papers or of highly-cited papers, with respect to the bulk of publications, provides important clues as to the dynamics of scientific research. Using 25 million papers and 600 million references from the Web of Science over the 1900-2006 per…
▽ More
Changes in citation distributions over 100 years can reveal much about the evolution of the scientific communities or disciplines. The prevalence of uncited papers or of highly-cited papers, with respect to the bulk of publications, provides important clues as to the dynamics of scientific research. Using 25 million papers and 600 million references from the Web of Science over the 1900-2006 period, this paper proposes a simple model based on a random selection process to explain the "uncitedness" phenomenon and its decline in recent years. We show that the proportion of uncited papers is a function of 1) the number of articles published in a given year (the competing papers) and 2) the number of articles subsequently published (the citing papers) and the number of references they contain. Using uncitedness as a departure point, we demonstrate the utility of the stretched-exponential function and a form of the Tsallis function to fit complete citation distributions over the 20th century. As opposed to simple power-law fits, for instance, both these approaches are shown to be empirically well-grounded and robust enough to better understand citation dynamics at the aggregate level. Based on an expansion of these models, on our new understanding of uncitedness and on our large dataset, we are able provide clear quantitative evidence and provisional explanations for an important shift in citation practices around 1960, unmatched in the 20th century. We also propose a revision of the "citation classic" category as a set of articles which is clearly distinguishable from the rest of the field.
△ Less
Submitted 8 October, 2008;
originally announced October 2008.
-
The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007
Authors:
Vincent Lariviere,
Yves Gingras,
Eric Archambault
Abstract:
This paper challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present paper analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (two- and five-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of c…
▽ More
This paper challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present paper analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (two- and five-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20, 50 and 80 percent of the citations; and, the Herfindahl-Hirschman index. These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
△ Less
Submitted 30 September, 2008;
originally announced September 2008.
-
Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of Nominees and Winners of the Chemistry and Physics Prizes (1901-2007)
Authors:
Yves Gingras,
Matthew L. Wallace
Abstract:
We propose a comprehensive bibliometric study of the profile of Nobel prizewinners in chemistry and physics from 1901 to 2007, based on citation data available over the same period. The data allows us to observe the evolution of the profiles of winners in the years leading up to (and following) nominations and awarding of the Nobel Prize. The degree centrality and citation rankings in these fiel…
▽ More
We propose a comprehensive bibliometric study of the profile of Nobel prizewinners in chemistry and physics from 1901 to 2007, based on citation data available over the same period. The data allows us to observe the evolution of the profiles of winners in the years leading up to (and following) nominations and awarding of the Nobel Prize. The degree centrality and citation rankings in these fields confirm that the Prize is awarded at the peak of the winners' careers, despite brief a Halo Effect observable in the years following the attribution of the Prize. Changes in the size and organization of the two fields result in a rapid decline of predictive power of bibliometric data over the century. This can be explained not only by the growing size and fragmentation of the two disciplines, but also, at least in the case of physics, by an implicit hierarchy in the most legitimate topics within the discipline, as well as among the scientists selected for the Prize. Furthermore, the lack of readily-identifiable dominant contemporary physicists suggests that there are few new paradigm shifts within the field, as perceived by the scientific community as a whole.
△ Less
Submitted 18 August, 2008;
originally announced August 2008.
-
A new approach for detecting scientific specialties from raw cocitation networks
Authors:
Matthew L. Wallace,
Yves Gingras,
Russell Duhon
Abstract:
We use a technique recently developed by Blondel et al. (2008) in order to detect scientific specialties from author cocitation networks. This algorithm has distinct advantages over most of the previous methods used to obtain cocitation "clusters", since it avoids the use of similarity measures, relies entirely on the topology of the weighted network and can be applied to relatively large networ…
▽ More
We use a technique recently developed by Blondel et al. (2008) in order to detect scientific specialties from author cocitation networks. This algorithm has distinct advantages over most of the previous methods used to obtain cocitation "clusters", since it avoids the use of similarity measures, relies entirely on the topology of the weighted network and can be applied to relatively large networks. Most importantly, it requires no subjective interpretation of the cocitation data or of the communities found. Using two examples, we show that the resulting specialties are the smallest coherent "group" of researchers (within a hierarchy of cluster sizes) and can thus be identified unambiguously. Furthermore, we confirm that these communities are indeed representative of what we know about the structure of a given scientific discipline and that, as specialties, they can be accurately characterized by a few keywords (from the publication titles). We argue that this robust and efficient algorithm is particularly well-suited to cocitation networks, and that the results generated can be of great use to researchers studying various facets of the structure and evolution of science.
△ Less
Submitted 30 July, 2008;
originally announced July 2008.
