IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v85y2010i1d10.1007_s11192-010-0234-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing a scientific elite: the social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology

Author

Listed:
  • John N. Parker

    (University of California, Santa Barbara)

  • Christopher Lortie

    (York University)

  • Stefano Allesina

    (University of Chicago)

Abstract

In science, a relatively small pool of researchers garners a disproportionally large number of citations. Still, very little is known about the social characteristics of highly cited scientists. This is unfortunate as these researchers wield a disproportional impact on their fields, and the study of highly cited scientists can enhance our understanding of the conditions which foster highly cited work, the systematic social inequalities which exist in science, and scientific careers more generally. This study provides information on this understudied subject by examining the social characteristics and opinions of the 0.1% most cited environmental scientists and ecologists. Overall, the social characteristics of these researchers tend to reflect broader patterns of inequality in the global scientific community. However, while the social characteristics of these researchers mirror those of other scientific elites in important ways, they differ in others, revealing findings which are both novel and surprising, perhaps indicating multiple pathways to becoming highly cited.

Suggested Citation

  • John N. Parker & Christopher Lortie & Stefano Allesina, 2010. "Characterizing a scientific elite: the social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 129-143, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:85:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0234-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0234-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0234-4
    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/s11192-010-0234-4?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. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    2. Henry Small, 2004. "Why authors think their papers are highly cited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 305-316, August.
    3. Gerard Pasterkamp & Joris I. Rotmans & Dominique V. P. Kleijn & Cornelius Borst, 2007. "Citation frequency: A biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 153-165, January.
    4. Aparna Basu, 2006. "Using ISI's 'Highly Cited Researchers' to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 361-375, September.
    5. Dag W. Aksnes, 2006. "Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 169-185, January.
    6. Joseph C. Hermanowicz, 2005. "Classifying Universities and Their Departments: A Social World Perspective," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(1), pages 26-55, January.
    7. Michael Batty, 2003. "The Geography of Scientific Citation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(5), pages 761-765, May.
    8. Matthew RE Symonds & Neil J Gemmell & Tamsin L Braisher & Kylie L Gorringe & Mark A Elgar, 2006. "Gender Differences in Publication Output: Towards an Unbiased Metric of Research Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-5, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Barbosa, Fabiana G. & Schneck, Fabiana, 2015. "Characteristics of the top-cited papers in species distribution predictive models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 313(C), pages 77-83.
    2. Zhang, Mengya & Zhang, Gupeng & Liu, Yun & Zhai, Xiaorong & Han, Xinying, 2020. "Scientists’ genders and international academic collaboration: An empirical study of Chinese universities and research institutes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    3. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.

    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. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    2. John N. Parker & Stefano Allesina & Christopher J. Lortie, 2013. "Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 469-480, February.
    3. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström, 2016. "Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 143-162, January.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/8741 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Michał Krawczyk & Magdalena Smyk, 2015. "Gender, beauty and support networks in academia: evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 2015-43, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    6. Lisa Geraci & Steve Balsis & Alexander J. Busch Busch, 2015. "Gender and the h index in psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2023-2034, December.
    7. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predicting the research performance of early career scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1481-1504, December.
    8. Pleun Arensbergen & Inge van der Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2012. "Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 857-868, December.
    9. Raquel Carrasco & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2019. "Spatial mobility in elite academic institutions in economics: the case of Spain," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 141-172, June.
    10. Heidi Prozesky & Nelius Boshoff, 2012. "Bibliometrics as a tool for measuring gender-specific research performance: an example from South African invasion ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 383-406, February.
    11. Elsa Addessi & Marta Borgi & Elisabetta Palagi, 2012. "Is Primatology an Equal-Opportunity Discipline?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, January.
    12. M. D. Ribeiro & S. M. R. Vasconcelos, 2018. "Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 719-734, February.
    13. Tahereh Dehdarirad & Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios, 2015. "Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 795-812, June.
    14. Pedro Albarrán & Raquel Carrasco & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2017. "Geographic mobility and research productivity in a selection of top world economics departments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 241-265, April.
    15. André Andrian Padial & João Carlos Nabout & Tadeu Siqueira & Luis Mauricio Bini & José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho, 2010. "Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 1-12, October.
    16. Georgina Santos & Stéphanie Dang Van Phu, 2019. "Gender and Academic Rank in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-46, June.
    17. Matthias Kuppler, 2022. "Predicting the future impact of Computer Science researchers: Is there a gender bias?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6695-6732, November.
    18. Wentian Shi & Debin Du & Wenlong Yang, 2019. "The Flow Network of Chinese Scientists and Its Driving Mechanisms Based on the Spatial Development Path of CAS and CAE Academicians," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    19. Tahereh Dehdarirad & Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios, 2014. "Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 273-290, October.
    20. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Gandelli, Claudio, 2012. "Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 265-275.
    21. Yun Liu & Mengya Zhang & Gupeng Zhang & Xiongxiong You, 2022. "Scientific elites versus other scientists: who are better at taking advantage of the research collaboration network?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3145-3166, June.

    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:85:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0234-4. 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.