Exploring the Disproportion Between Scientific Productivity and Knowledge Amount

The pursuit of knowledge is the permanent goal of human beings. Scientific literature, as the major medium that carries knowledge between scientists, exhibits explosive growth during the last century. Despite the frequent use of many tangible measures, such as citation, impact factor and g-index, to quantify the influence of papers from different perspectives based on scientific productivity, it has not yet been well understood how the relationship between scientific productivity and knowledge amount turns out to be, i.e., how the knowledge value of papers and knowledge amount vary with development of the discipline. This raises the question of whether high scientific productivity equals large knowledge amount. Here, building on rich literature on academic conferences and journals, we collect 185 million articles covering 19 disciplines published during 1970 to 2020, and establish citation network research area to represent the knowledge flow from the authors of the article being cited to the authors of the articles that cite it under each specific area. As a result, the structure formed during the evolution of each scientific area can implicitly tells how the knowledge flows between nodes and how it behaves as the number of literature (productivity) increases. By leveraging Structural entropy in structured high-dimensional space and Shannon entropy in unstructured probability space, we propose the Quantitative Index of Knowledge (KQI), which is taken as the subtraction between the two types of entropy, to reflect the extent of disorder difference (knowledge amount) caused by structure (order). With the aid of KQI, we find that, although the published literature shows an explosive growth, the amount of knowledge (KQI) contained in it obviously slows down, and there is a threshold after which the growth of knowledge accelerates...

[1]  James H. Moor,et al.  Knowledge and the Flow of Information. , 1982 .

[2]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  K. Oatley Structure of Knowledge , 1972, Nature.

[4]  Myron Louis Gochnauer,et al.  The Analysis of Knowledge , 1941, Nature.

[5]  James A. Evans,et al.  Open Access and Global Participation in Science , 2009, Science.

[6]  Christian Catalini,et al.  The incidence and role of negative citations in science , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Ralph A. Heidl,et al.  Knowledge, Networks, and Knowledge Networks: A Review and Research Agenda , 2011 .

[8]  D. Fanelli A theory and methodology to quantify knowledge , 2018, Royal Society Open Science.

[9]  Alan Fersht,et al.  The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  W. Myers,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013 .

[11]  E. Garfield The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[12]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[13]  Angsheng Li,et al.  Structural Information and Dynamical Complexity of Networks , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[14]  Thijs Pollman,et al.  Forgetting and the Ageing of Scientific Publications , 2004, Scientometrics.

[15]  R. Ackoff From Data to Wisdom , 2014 .

[16]  James A. Evans,et al.  Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology , 2019, Nature.

[17]  Felix Poege,et al.  Science quality and the value of inventions , 2019, Science Advances.

[18]  Eric S. Lander,et al.  Journey to the Center of Biology , 2000, Science.

[19]  Adam Eyre-Walker,et al.  The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations , 2013, PLoS biology.

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

[21]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[22]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[23]  Matthias Steup,et al.  The Analysis of Knowledge , 2001 .

[24]  Alexander Yong,et al.  A Critique of Hirsch's Citation Index: A Combinatorial Fermi Problem , 2014, 1402.4357.

[25]  Edmund L. Gettier Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? , 1963, Arguing About Knowledge.

[26]  A. D. Jackson,et al.  Measures for measures , 2006, Nature.

[27]  Michelle Gittelman,et al.  Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[28]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[29]  R. Durrett Random Graph Dynamics: References , 2006 .

[30]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks , 2009, Nature.

[31]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[32]  Jiye Liang,et al.  Knowledge structure, knowledge granulation and knowledge distance in a knowledge base , 2009, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[33]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal , 2019, Nature.

[34]  Emden R. Gansner,et al.  A Technique for Drawing Directed Graphs , 1993, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[35]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[36]  E. Fong,et al.  Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research , 2017, PloS one.

[37]  Kamalika Basu Hajra,et al.  Aging in citation networks , 2004, cond-mat/0409017.