IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i4d10.1007_s11192-024-04962-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Skewed distributions of scientists’ productivity: a research program for the empirical analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann

    (Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society)

Abstract

Only a few scientists are able to publish a substantial number of papers every year; most of the scientists have an output of only a few publications or no publications at all. Several theories (e.g., the “sacred spark” theory) have been proposed in the past to explain these productivity differences that are complementary and focus on different aspects in the publication process. This study is intended to introduce a research program for studying productivity differences in science (skewed distributions of scientists’ productivity). The program is based on the Anna Karenina Principle (AKP). The AKP states that success in research is the result of several prerequisites that are multiplicatively related. Great success results from prerequisites that must be all given. If at least one prerequisite is not given, failure follows, whereby the failure is specific to the set of given and missing prerequisites. High productivity is given for the few scientists who fulfill all prerequisites (e.g., high motivation, pronounced creativity, reputational professional position, early important papers in high-impact journals), and low productivity is connected to a specific combination of missing and fulfilled prerequisites for many scientists. Besides the AKP as theoretical principle, the program for studying productivity differences includes a mathematical concept explaining skewed distributions and statistical methods for empirical productivity analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann, 2024. "Skewed distributions of scientists’ productivity: a research program for the empirical analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(4), pages 2455-2468, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04962-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-04962-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-04962-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-04962-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P. A. Ioannidis & Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2018. "Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days," Nature, Nature, vol. 561(7722), pages 167-169, September.
    2. Joshua Ettinger & Friederike E. L. Otto & E. Lisa F. Schipper, 2021. "Storytelling can be a powerful tool for science," Nature, Nature, vol. 589(7842), pages 352-352, January.
    3. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    4. Iman Tahamtan & Lutz Bornmann, 2019. "What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1635-1684, December.
    5. Vincent Larivière & Rodrigo Costas, 2016. "How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-10, September.
    6. Bear F. Braumoeller, 2004. "Boolean logit and probit in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 4(4), pages 436-441, December.
    7. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2012. "The Anna Karenina principle: A way of thinking about success in science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(10), pages 2037-2051, October.
    8. Johan S. G. Chu & James A. Evans, 2021. "Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(41), pages 2021636118-, October.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Rüdiger Mutz, 2021. "Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    11. John P A Ioannidis & Kevin W Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2014. "Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Mitcham, Carl & Emeritus,, 2021. "Science policy and democracy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Braumoeller, Bear F., 2003. "Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 209-233, July.
    14. Shouhuai Xu & Moti Yung & Jingguo Wang, 2021. "Seeking Foundations for the Science of Cyber Security," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 263-267, April.
    15. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 203-216.
    16. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    17. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 132-140, January.
    18. Steven M. Shugan & Debanjan Mitra, 2009. "Metrics--When and Why Nonaveraging Statistics Work," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 4-15, January.
    19. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Testing the trade‐off between productivity and quality in research activities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 132-140, January.
    20. Rodrigo Costas & Maria Bordons & Thed N. van Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. van Raan, 2009. "Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field‐specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(4), pages 740-753, April.
    21. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Anastasiia Soldatenkova, 2017. "How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: evidence from Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 867-877, February.
    22. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Anastasiia Soldatenkova, 2017. "Erratum to: How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: evidence from Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1825-1825, December.
    23. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    24. Kasia Zalewska-Kurek & Peter A T M Geurts & Hans E Roosendaal, 2010. "The impact of the autonomy and interdependence of individual researchers on their production of knowledge and its impact: an empirical study of a nanotechnology institute," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 217-225, September.
    25. Weihua Li & Tomaso Aste & Fabio Caccioli & Giacomo Livan, 2019. "Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    26. Shalabh, 2021. "Statistical inference via data science," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 1155-1155, July.
    27. Werner Marx & Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "The emergence of plate tectonics and the Kuhnian model of paradigm shift: a bibliometric case study based on the Anna Karenina principle," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 595-614, February.
    28. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predicting the research performance of early career scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1481-1504, December.
    29. A. Raan, 1999. "Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(3), pages 417-423, July.
    30. Jean J. Wang & Sarah X. Shao & Fred Y. Ye, 2021. "Identifying 'seed' papers in sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6001-6011, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rainer Frietsch & Sonia Gruber & Lutz Bornmann, 2025. "The definition of highly cited researchers: the effect of different approaches on the empirical outcome," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 881-907, February.
    2. Alex J. Yang & Hongcun Gong & Yuhao Wang & Chao Zhang & Sanhong Deng, 2024. "Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 561-580, January.
    3. Peng, Xianzhe & Xu, Huixin & Shi, Jin, 2024. "Are the bibliometric growth patterns of excellent scholars similar? From the analysis of ACM Fellows," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    4. Thomas, Duncan Andrew & Ramos-Vielba, Irene, 2022. "Reframing study of research(er) funding towards configurations and trails," SocArXiv uty2v, Center for Open Science.
    5. Weihua Li & Sam Zhang & Zhiming Zheng & Skyler J. Cranmer & Aaron Clauset, 2022. "Untangling the network effects of productivity and prominence among scientists," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Liyin Zhang & Yuchen Qian & Chao Ma & Jiang Li, 2023. "Continued collaboration shortens the transition period of scientists who move to another institution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1765-1784, March.
    7. Michael Färber & Melissa Coutinho & Shuzhou Yuan, 2023. "Biases in scholarly recommender systems: impact, prevalence, and mitigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2703-2736, May.
    8. Manuel Goyanes & Márton Demeter & Aurea Grané & Tamás Tóth & Homero Gil Zúñiga, 2023. "Research patterns in communication (2009–2019): testing female representation and productivity differences, within the most cited authors and the field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 137-156, January.
    9. Malte Hückstädt, 2023. "Ten reasons why research collaborations succeed—a random forest approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1923-1950, March.
    10. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    11. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Rüdiger Mutz, 2021. "Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Zhuanlan Sun & C. Clark Cao & Sheng Liu & Yiwei Li & Chao Ma, 2024. "Behavioral consequences of second-person pronouns in written communications between authors and reviewers of scientific papers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Liang, Zhentao & Ba, Zhichao & Mao, Jin & Li, Gang, 2023. "Research complexity increases with scientists’ academic age: Evidence from library and information science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    14. Alex J. Yang & Huimin Xu & Ying Ding & Meijun Liu, 2024. "Unveiling the dynamics of team age structure and its impact on scientific innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6127-6148, October.
    15. Yang, Alex Jie & Wu, Linwei & Zhang, Qi & Wang, Hao & Deng, Sanhong, 2023. "The k-step h-index in citation networks at the paper, author, and institution levels," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    16. Li, Meiling & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Bai, Aruhan, 2024. "Motivating innovation: The impact of prestigious talent funding on junior scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(9).
    17. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2023. "A heuristic approach based on Leiden rankings to identify outliers: evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 483-510, January.
    18. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V. & Shmatko, Natalia A., 2023. "Uncited papers in the structure of scientific communication," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    19. Gerald Schweiger & Adrian Barnett & Peter van den Besselaar & Lutz Bornmann & Andreas De Block & John P. A. Ioannidis & Ulf Sandstrom & Stijn Conix, 2024. "The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds," Papers 2403.16934, arXiv.org.
    20. Bornmann, Lutz & Williams, Richard, 2017. "Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 788-799.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04962-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.