Power laws in citation distributions: Evidence from Scopus
Modeling distributions of citations to scientific papers is crucial for understanding how science develops. However, there is a considerable empirical controversy on which statistical model fits the citation distributions best. This paper is concerned with rigorous empirical detection of power-law behaviour in the distribution of citations received by the most highly cited scientific papers. We have used a large, novel data set on citations to scientific papers published between 1998 and 2002 drawn from Scopus. The power-law model is compared with a number of alternative models using a likelihood ratio test. We have found that the power-law hypothesis is rejected for around half of the Scopus fields of science. For these fields of science, the Yule, power-law with exponential cut-off and log-normal distributions seem to fit the data better than the pure power-law model. On the other hand, when the power-law hypothesis is not rejected, it is usually empirically indistinguishable from most of the alternative models.
|Date of creation:||2014|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (+48 22) 55 49 144
Fax: (+48 22) 831 28 46
Web page: http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Xavier Gabaix, 2008.
"Power Laws in Economics and Finance,"
NBER Working Papers
14299, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2010.
"The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates,"
Economics Working Papers
we1038, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía.
- Albarrán, Pedro & Crespo, Juan A. & Ortuño-Ortín, Ignacio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2010. "The Skewness of Science in 219 Sub-Fields and a Number of Aggregates," CEPR Discussion Papers 8126, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2011. "The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates," Economics Working Papers we1109, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía.
- López-Illescas, Carmen & de Moya-Anegón, Félix & Moed, Henk F., 2008. "Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 304-316.
- Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo & Salehi, Hadi & Md Yunus, Melor & Farhadi, Hadi & Fooladi, Masood & Farhadi, Maryam & Ale Ebrahim, Nader, 2013. "A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases," MPRA Paper 46898, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Mar 2013.
- S. Redner, 1998. "How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution," The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 131-134, July.
- Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-33, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2014-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marcin Bąba)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.