Performance-related differences of bibliometric statistical properties of research groups: Cumulative advantages and hierarchically layered networks

In this paper we distinguish between top-performance and lower performance groups in the analysis of statistical properties of bibliometric characteristics of two large sets of research groups. We find intriguing differences between top-performance and lower performance groups, but also between the two sets of research groups. Particularly these latter differences are interesting, as they may indicate the influence of research management strategies. Lower performance groups have a larger scale-dependent cumulative advantage than top-performance groups. We also find that regardless of performance, larger groups have less not-cited publications. We introduce a simple model in which processes at the micro level lead to the observed phenomena at the macro level. Top-performance groups are, on average, more successful in the entire range of journal impact. We fit our findings into a concept of hierarchically layered networks. In this concept, the network of research groups constitutes a layer of one hierarchical step higher than the basic network of publications connected by citations. The cumulative size-advantage of citations received by a group looks like preferential attachment in the basic network in which highly connected nodes (publications) increase their connectivity faster than less connected nodes. But in our study it is size that causes an advantage. In general, the larger a group (node in the research group network), the more incoming links this group acquires in a non-linear, cumulative way. Moreover, top-performance groups are about an order of magnitude more efficient in creating linkages (i.e., receiving citations) than the lower performance groups.

[1]  J. S. Katz,et al.  Scale-Independent Bibliometric Indicators , 2005 .

[2]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Measurement of Central Aspects of Scientific Research: Performance, Interdisciplinarity, Structure , 2005 .

[3]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , 2005 .

[4]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Virtual Round Table on ten leading questions for network research , 2004 .

[5]  M. Newman Properties of highly clustered networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  V. Eguíluz,et al.  Highly clustered scale-free networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation , 2003, Scientometrics.

[8]  A. F. J. Van Raan,et al.  Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research , 2001 .

[9]  R. Prins,et al.  Chemistry and chemical engineering of catalytic processes , 1980 .

[10]  J. S. Katz,et al.  The self-similar science system , 1999 .

[11]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Improving the Accuracy of Institute for Scientific Informations's Journal Impact Factors , 1995, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[12]  Taylor Francis Online,et al.  Ultracold atomic gases in optical lattices: mimicking condensed matter physics and beyond , 2006, cond-mat/0606771.

[13]  Per O. Seglen,et al.  The Skewness of Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[14]  S. Redner How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution , 1998, cond-mat/9804163.

[15]  A. V. van Raan,et al.  Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods , 2005 .

[16]  S. N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Evolution of networks , 2001, cond-mat/0106144.

[17]  J. S. Katz,et al.  Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation , 2000 .

[18]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises , 1996, Scientometrics.

[19]  T. V. Leeuwen,et al.  Impact factors can mislead , 1996, Nature.

[20]  M. Newman Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  Stefano Mossa,et al.  Truncation of power law behavior in "scale-free" network models due to information filtering. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[22]  A. Raan Measuring Science: Capita Selecta of Current Main Issues , 2004 .

[23]  A. Vázquez Statistics of citation networks , 2001, cond-mat/0105031.

[24]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[25]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Ed J. Rinia,et al.  COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF A SET OF BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS AND CENTRAL PEER REVIEW CRITERIA. EVALUATION OF CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS IN THE NETHERLANDS , 1998 .

[27]  Z. Neda,et al.  Measuring preferential attachment in evolving networks , 2001, cond-mat/0104131.

[28]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[29]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property , 1988, Isis.

[30]  P. Lawrence The politics of publication , 2003, Nature.

[31]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[32]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation , 2005, Scientometrics.

[33]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Reference-based publication networks with episodic memories , 2003, Scientometrics.

[34]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Facing Diversity of Science: A Challenge for Bibliometric Indicators , 2005 .

[35]  A. C. Chiang Fundamental methods of mathematical economics , 1974 .

[36]  Per Ottar Seglen,et al.  Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact , 1994 .

[37]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  In basic science the percentage of “authoritative” references decreases as bibliographies become shorter , 2004, Scientometrics.

[38]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Hierarchical organization in complex networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[39]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.