Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline

Publication statistics are ubiquitous in the ratings of scientific achievement, with citation counts and paper tallies factoring into an individual's consideration for postdoctoral positions, junior faculty, tenure, and even visa status for international scientists. Citation statistics are designed to quantify individual career achievement, both at the level of a single publication, and over an individual's entire career. While some academic careers are defined by a few significant papers (possibly out of many), other academic careers are defined by the cumulative contribution made by the author's publications to the body of science. Several metrics have been formulated to quantify an individual's publication career, yet none of these metrics account for the dependence of citation counts and journal size on time. In this paper, we normalize publication metrics across both time and discipline in order to achieve a universal framework for analyzing and comparing scientific achievement. We study the publication careers of individual authors over the 50-year period 1958-2008 within six high-impact journals: CELL, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Nature, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), Physical Review Letters (PRL), and Science. In comparing the achievement of authors within each journal, we uncover quantifiable statistical regularity in the probability density function (pdf) of scientific achievement across both time and discipline. The universal distribution of career success within these arenas for publication raises the possibility that a fundamental driving force underlying scientific achievement is the competitive nature of scientific advancement.Comment: 25 pages in 1 Column Preprint format, 7 Figures, 4 Tables. Version II: changes made in response to referee comments. Note: change in definition of "Paper shares.

Tracking Exceptional Human Capital Over Two Decades

Talent-search participants (286 males, 94 females) scoring in the top 0.01% on cognitive-ability measures were identified before age 13 and tracked over 20 years. Their creative, occupational, and life accomplishments are compared with those of graduate students (299 males, 287 females) enrolled in top-ranked U.S. mathematics, engineering, and physical science programs in 1992 and tracked over 10 years. By their mid-30s, the two groups achieved comparable and exceptional success (e.g., securing top tenure-track positions) and reported high and commensurate career and life satisfaction. College entrance exams administered to intellectually precocious youth uncover extraordinary potential for careers requiring creativity and scientific and technological innovation in the information age

Statistical regularities in the rank-citation profile of scientists

Recent science of science research shows that scientific impact measures for journals and individual articles have quantifiable regularities across both time and discipline. However, little is known about the scientific impact distribution at the scale of an individual scientist. We analyze the aggregate production and impact using the rank-citation profile ci(r) of 200 distinguished professors and 100 assistant professors. For the entire range of paper rank r, we fit each ci(r) to a common distribution function. Since two scientists with equivalent Hirsch h-index can have significantly different ci(r) profiles, our results demonstrate the utility of the βi scaling parameter in conjunction with hi for quantifying individual publication impact. We show that the total number of citations Ci tallied from a scientist's Ni papers scales as . Such statistical regularities in the input-output patterns of scientists can be used as benchmarks for theoretical models of career progress

Bibliografia naukometryczno‑bibliometryczno‑informetryczna (wybór)

The text presents a selection of bibliography on scientometrics, bibliometrics and informetrics.The bibliography was chosen in the context of the author’s research of: a) the current debate on scientometrics, bibliometrics and informetrics in Poland, b) the history of these disciplines, and c) the history of the science of science.This selection has an important advantage because it includes many publications that a) represent the views both of Polish and foreign authors, b) discuss serious methodological limitations of scientometrics, bibliometrics and informetrics and c) show the inseparable connection between the disciplines and the science of science.This bibliography was already used in two of the author’s articles published in Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU, volume 14 (2015).Przedstawiono wybór bibliografii z zakresu naukometrii, bibliometrii oraz informetrii.Bibliografia została wyselekcjonowana w ramach autorskich badań prowadzonych w zakresie: a) aktualnej debaty na temat naukometrii, bibliometrii oraz informetrii w Polsce, b) historii tych dyscyplin oraz c) historii naukoznawstwa.Zaletą takiego wyboru jest uwzględnienie wielu publikacji, które: a) przedstawiają poglądy zarówno polskich, jak i zagranicznych autorów; b) omawiają poważne ograniczenia metodyczne naukometrii, bibliometrii oraz informetrii; c) ukazują nierozerwalny związek tych dyscyplin z naukoznawstwem.Prezentowaną niżej bibliografię autor wykorzystał także w dwóch artykułach opublikowanych w tomie 14. Prac Komisji Historii Nauki PAU (rok 2015)