The Distribution of the Asymptotic Number of Citations to Sets of Publications by a Researcher or From an Academic Department Are Consistent With a Discrete Lognormal Model

How to quantify the impact of a researcher's or an institution's body of work is a matter of increasing importance to scientists, funding agencies, and hiring committees. The use of bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index or the Journal Impact Factor, have become widespread despite their known limitations. We argue that most existing bibliometric indicators are inconsistent, biased, and, worst of all, susceptible to manipulation. Here, we pursue a principled approach to the development of an indicator to quantify the scientific impact of both individual researchers and research institutions grounded on the functional form of the distribution of the asymptotic number of citations. We validate our approach using the publication records of 1,283 researchers from seven scientific and engineering disciplines and the chemistry departments at the 106 U.S. research institutions classified as "very high research activity". Our approach has three distinct advantages. First, it accurately captures the overall scientific impact of researchers at all career stages, as measured by asymptotic citation counts. Second, unlike other measures, our indicator is resistant to manipulation and rewards publication quality over quantity. Third, our approach captures the time-evolution of the scientific impact of research institutions.Comment: 20 pages, 11 figures, 3 table

Scientific elite revisited: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact

Throughout history, a relatively small number of individuals have made a profound and lasting impact on science and society. Despite long-standing, multi-disciplinary interests in understanding careers of elite scientists, there have been limited attempts for a quantitative, career-level analysis. Here, we leverage a comprehensive dataset we assembled, allowing us to trace the entire career histories of nearly all Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine over the past century. We find that, although Nobel laureates were energetic producers from the outset, producing works that garner unusually high impact, their careers before winning the prize follow relatively similar patterns as ordinary scientists, being characterized by hot streaks and increasing reliance on collaborations. We also uncovered notable variations along their careers, often associated with the Nobel prize, including shifting coauthorship structure in the prize-winning work, and a significant but temporary dip in the impact of work they produce after winning the Nobel. Together, these results document quantitative patterns governing the careers of scientific elites, offering an empirical basis for a deeper understanding of the hallmarks of exceptional careers in science

Hot Streaks in Artistic, Cultural, and Scientific Careers

The hot streak, loosely defined as winning begets more winnings, highlights a specific period during which an individual's performance is substantially higher than her typical performance. While widely debated in sports, gambling, and financial markets over the past several decades, little is known if hot streaks apply to individual careers. Here, building on rich literature on lifecycle of creativity, we collected large-scale career histories of individual artists, movie directors and scientists, tracing the artworks, movies, and scientific publications they produced. We find that, across all three domains, hit works within a career show a high degree of temporal regularity, each career being characterized by bursts of high-impact works occurring in sequence. We demonstrate that these observations can be explained by a simple hot-streak model we developed, allowing us to probe quantitatively the hot streak phenomenon governing individual careers, which we find to be remarkably universal across diverse domains we analyzed: The hot streaks are ubiquitous yet unique across different careers. While the vast majority of individuals have at least one hot streak, hot streaks are most likely to occur only once. The hot streak emerges randomly within an individual's sequence of works, is temporally localized, and is unassociated with any detectable change in productivity. We show that, since works produced during hot streaks garner significantly more impact, the uncovered hot streaks fundamentally drives the collective impact of an individual, ignoring which leads us to systematically over- or under-estimate the future impact of a career. These results not only deepen our quantitative understanding of patterns governing individual ingenuity and success, they may also have implications for decisions and policies involving predicting and nurturing individuals with lasting impact

Citation models and research evaluation

Citations in science are being studied from several perspectives. On the one hand, there are approaches such as scientometrics and the science of science, which take a more quantitative perspective. In this chapter I briefly review some of the literature on citations, citation distributions and models of citations. These citations feature prominently in another part of the literature which is dealing with research evaluation and the role of metrics and indicators in that process. Here I briefly review part of the discussion in research evaluation. This also touches on the subject of how citations relate to peer review. Finally, I try to integrate the two literatures with the aim of clarifying what I believe the two can learn from each other. The fundamental problem in research evaluation is that research quality is unobservable. This has consequences for conclusions that we can draw from quantitative studies of citations and citation models. The term "indicators" is a relevant concept in this context, which I try to clarify. Causality is important for properly understanding indicators, especially when indicators are used in practice: when we act on indicators, we enter causal territory. Even when an indicator might have been valid, through its very use, the consequences of its use may invalidate it. By combining citation models with proper causal reasoning and acknowledging the fundamental problem about unobservable research quality, we may hope to make progress.Comment: This is a draft. The final version will be available in Handbook of Computational Social Science edited by Taha Yasseri, forthcoming 2023, Edward Elgar Publishing Lt

Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: evidence across eight scientific fields

Abstract Can we help predict the future impact of researchers using early-career factors? We analyze early-career factors of the world’s 100 most prominent researchers across 8 scientific fields and identify four key drivers in researchers’ initial career: working at a top 25 ranked university, publishing a paper in a top 5 ranked journal, publishing most papers in top quartile (high-impact) journals and co-authoring with other prominent researchers in their field. We find that over 95% of prominent researchers across multiple fields had at least one of these four features in the first 5 years of their career. We find that the most prominent scientists who had an early career advantage in terms of citations and h-index are more likely to have had all four features, and that this advantage persists throughout their career after 10, 15 and 20 years. Our findings show that these few early-career factors help predict researchers’ impact later in their careers. Our research thus points to the need to enhance fairness and career mobility among scientists who have not had a jump start early on

Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication

Scientometrics have become an essential element in the practice and evaluation of science and research, including both the evaluation of individuals and national assessment exercises. Yet, researchers and practitioners in this field have lacked clear theories to guide their work. As early as 1981, then doctoral student Blaise Cronin published The need for a theory of citing - a call to arms for the fledgling scientometric community to produce foundational theories upon which the work of the field could be based. More than three decades later, the time has come to reach out the field again and ask how they have responded to this call. This book compiles the foundational theories that guide informetrics and scholarly communication research. It is a much needed compilation by leading scholars in the field that gathers together the theories that guide our understanding of authorship, citing, and impact

Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication

Scientometrics have become an essential element in the practice and evaluation of science and research, including both the evaluation of individuals and national assessment exercises. Yet, researchers and practitioners in this field have lacked clear theories to guide their work. As early as 1981, then doctoral student Blaise Cronin published "The need for a theory of citing" —a call to arms for the fledgling scientometric community to produce foundational theories upon which the work of the field could be based. More than three decades later, the time has come to reach out the field again and ask how they have responded to this call. This book compiles the foundational theories that guide informetrics and scholarly communication research. It is a much needed compilation by leading scholars in the field that gathers together the theories that guide our understanding of authorship, citing, and impact