Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research

The following kinds of data were collected on three samples of cancer research literature representing three levels of quality: (1) collaboration as measured by the number of authors per paper, (2) quantitative productivity of countries, (3) diachronous citations covering the first five years of publication, (4) total self-citations, (5) proportions of self-citations made by first-named authors, and (6) the extent of dispersion of articles among journals. Analyses showed that as the number of authors per paper increases, the proportion of high quality papers also increases and the Collaborative Index can be used to measure quality in the aggregate. It was found that the quantity and quality of cancer research done in a country are positively related. All analyses of the citation data confirmed the hypotheses that highly rated papers are significantly more highly cited than average papers and the rates of uncitedness decline with quality. The proportion of self-citations to total citations decreases with increasing quality and, on average, first-named authors of quality papers cite them proportionally fewer times than first-named authors of run-of-the mill papers do. This study also shows that, as quality increases, the extent of literature scatter or dispersion increases.

[1]  Rick Crandall,et al.  Ps B Lication Notes , 1978 .

[2]  W. Dennis.  Bibliographies of eminent scientists. , 1954 .

[3]  A. J. Meadows.  Communication in science , 1974 .

[4]  Stephen M. Lawani.  On the relationship between quantity and quality of a country's research productivity , 1982 .

[5]  Alan E. Bayer,et al.  Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications: New evidence with peer assessment , 1983, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[6]  S. M. Lawani.  Citation Analysis and the Quality of Scientific Productivity , 1977 .

[7]  Group Effort in Modern Physics Research , 1959, Science.

[8]  E. Garfield.  Citation Indexing for Studying Science , 1970, Nature.

[9]  Stephen M. Lawani,et al.  On the Heterogeneity and Classification of Author Self-Citations , 2007, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Julie A. C. Virgo,et al.  A Statistical Procedure for Evaluating the Importance of Scientific Papers , 1977, The Library Quarterly.

[11]  Derek J. de Solla Price,et al.  "Little Science, Big Science", Derek J. de Solla Price, New York-London 1963 : [recenzja] / Janusz Thor. , 1964 .

[12]  Quality in science , 1982 .

[13]  R. Rosen,et al.  PART I. THE PROFESSIONAL ORIGINS OF SCIENTIFIC CO-AUTHORSHIP , 1978 .

[14]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Studies in scientific collaboration , 2005, Scientometrics.

[15]  B. L. Clarke.  Multiple Authorship Trends in Scientific Papers , 1964, Science.

[16]  A. Bayer,et al.  Some Correlates of a Citation Measure of Productivity in Science , 1966 .

[17]  H. Zuckerman.  Nobel laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. , 1967, American sociological review.

[18]  B. Mazlish.  The Quality of ‘The Quality of Science’: An Evaluation , 1982 .

[19]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship , 1979, Scientometrics.

[20]  D. Price.  Little Science, Big Science , 1965 .

[21]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Studies in scientific collaboration , 1978, Scientometrics.