Which are the influential publications in the Web of Science subject categories over a long period of time? CRExplorer software used for big-data analyses in bibliometrics *
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2021
Which are the influential publications in the Web of Science subject categories over a long period of time? CRExplorer software used for big-data analyses in bibliometrics *
What are the landmark papers in scientific disciplines? Which papers are indispensable for scientific progress? These are typical questions which are of interest not only for researchers (who frequently know the answers – or guess to know them) but also for the interested general public. Citation counts can be used to identify very useful papers since they reflect the wisdom of the crowd – in this case, the scientists using published results for their research. In this study, we identified with recently developed methods for the program CRExplorer landmark publications in nearly all Web of Science subject categories (WoS-SCs). These are publications which belong more frequently than other publications during the citing years to the top-1‰ in their subject area. As examples, we show the results of five subject categories: ‘Information Science & Library Science’, ‘Computer Science, Information Systems’, ‘Computer Science, Software Engineering’, ‘Psychology, Social’ and, ‘Chemistry, Physical’. The results of the other WoS-SCs can be found online at http://crexplorer.net. An analyst of the results should keep in mind that the identification of landmark papers depends on the used methods and data. Small differences in methods and/or data may lead to other results.
SivertsenG. Problems and considerations in the design of bibliometric indicators for national performance based research funding systems. In: Proceedings of the science, technology, & innovation indicators conference on open indicators: innovation, participation and actor-based STI indicators, 8 September 2017. Paris: ESIEE Paris. https://sti2017.paris/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/rp1-gunnar-sivertsen.pdf
2.
Van NoordenRMaherBNuzzoR. The top 100 papers. Nature2014; 514(7524): 550–553.
3.
WinninkJJTijssenRJWVan RaanAFJ. Searching for new breakthroughs in science: how effective are computerised detection algorithms?Technol Forecast Soc2019; 146: 673–686.
4.
HollingsworthJR. Scientific discoveries: an institutionalist and path-dependent perspective. In: HannawayC (ed.) Biomedicine in the twentieth century: practices, policies, and politics, vol. 72 (biomedical and health research). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2008, pp. 317–353.
5.
SchlagbergerEMBornmannLBauerJ.At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014. Scientometrics2016; 109(2): 723–767.
6.
Orduna-MaleaEMartín-MartínADelgado López-CózarE. Classic papers: using Google Scholar to detect the highly-cited documents. In: Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2018 Leiden ‘science, technology and innovation indicators in transition’ (ed. PWouters), 12–14 September 2018. Leiden: University of Leiden, file:///C:/Users/RIYA3625/Downloads/STI2018_gs_classics_final.pdf
MoedHFBurgerWJMFrankfortJGet al. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Res Policy1985; 14(3): 131–149.
9.
WangJ. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics2013; 94(3): 851–872.
10.
PonomarevIVWilliamsDEHackettCJet al. Predicting highly cited papers: a method for early detection of candidate breakthroughs. Technol Forecast Soc2014; 81: 49–55.
11.
BaumgartnerSELeydesdorffL. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) of citations in scholarly literature: dynamic qualities of ‘transient’ and ‘sticky knowledge claims’. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2014; 65(4): 797–811.
12.
LeydesdorffLBornmannLCominsJAet al. Citations: indicators of quality? The impact fallacy. Front Res Metr Anal2016; 1: 1.
13.
WangJVeugelersRStephanPE. Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Res Policy2017; 46(8): 1416–1436.
14.
MairesseJPezzoniM. Novelty in science: the impact of French physicists’ novel articles. In: Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference on ‘science, technology and innovation indicators in transition’ (ed. PWouters), 11September2018. Leiden: University of Leiden, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/65229
15.
GarfieldEPudovkinAIIstominVS. Algorithmic citation-linked historiography – mapping the literature of science. P Amer Soc Inf Sci Tech2002; 39: 14–24.
16.
MarxWBornmannLBarthAet al. Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2014; 65(4): 751–764.
17.
MarxWHaunschildRThorAet al. Which early works are cited most frequently in climate change research literature? A bibliometric approach based on reference publication year spectroscopy. Scientometrics2017; 110(1): 335–353.
18.
CominsJALeydesdorffL. Data-mining the foundational patents of photovoltaic materials: an application of patent citation spectroscopy. J Scientometric Res2018; 7(2): 79–83.
19.
ThorABornmannLMarxWet al. Identifying single influential publications in a research field: new analysis opportunities of the CRExplorer. Scientometrics2018; 116(1): 591–608.
20.
CominsJALeydesdorffL. Citation algorithms for identifying research milestones driving biomedical innovation. Scientometrics2017; 110(3): 1495–1504.
ThorAMarxWLeydesdorffLet al. Introducing CitedReferencesExplorer (CRExplorer): a program for reference publication year spectroscopy with cited references standardization. J Informetr2016; 10(2): 503–515.
23.
LeydesdorffL. Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports?J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2006; 57(5): 601–613.
24.
BornmannL. How are excellent (highly cited) papers defined in bibliometrics? A quantitative analysis of the literature. Res Evaluat2014; 23(2): 166–173.
25.
BelkinNJOddyRNBrooksHM. Ask for information retrieval: part 1. Background and theory. J Doc1982; 38(2): 61–71.
26.
Van RijsbergenCJ. Information retrieval. Unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, 1979.
27.
PorterME. Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Free Press, 1980.
28.
PorterME. Competitive advantage of nations: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York, NY: Free Press, 1990.
29.
GiddensA. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
30.
WhiteHDGriffithBC. Author cocitation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. J Am Soc Inf Sci1981; 32(3): 163–171.
31.
RivestRLShamirAAdlemanL. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. J Commun ACM1978; 21(2): 120–126.
32.
ElGamalT (ed.). A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. In: Workshop on the theory and application of cryptographic techniques, Santa Barbara, CA, 18–22 August 1985, pp. 10–18. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.
33.
DiffieWHellmanM. New directions in cryptography. J IEEE Trans Inf Theor2006; 22(6): 644–654.
34.
GareyMRJohnsonDS. Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, 1979.
35.
MacWilliamsFJSloaneNJA. The theory of error-correcting codes. New York, NY: North-Holland Publishing, 1977.
MarrDHildrethE. Theory of edge detection. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci1980; 207(1167): 187–217.
39.
WeiserM. Program slicing. IEEE Trans Softw Eng1984; 10(4): 439–449.
40.
TverskyAKahnemanD. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science1974; 185(4157): 1124–1131.
41.
KahnemanDTverskyA. Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica1979; 47(2): 263–291.
42.
TajfelHBilligMGBundyRPet al. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur J Soc Psychol1971; 1(2): 149–178.
43.
BowlbyJ. Attachment and loss: attachment, vol. 1. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1969.
44.
BowlbyJ. Attachment and loss: separation: anxiety and anger, vol. 2. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973.
45.
VoskoSHWilkLNusairM. Accurate spin-dependent electron liquid correlation energies for local spin-density calculations – a critical analysis. Can J Phys1980; 58(8): 1200–1211.
46.
HaunschildRBarthAMarxW. Evolution of DFT studies in view of a scientometric perspective. J Cheminformatics2016; 8: 52.
47.
VerweyEJWOverbeekJTG. Theory of the stability of lyophobic colloids. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1948.
PerdewJP. Density-functional approximation for the correlation energy of the inhomogeneous electron gas. Phys Rev B1986; 33(12): 8822–8824.
50.
McLeanADChandlerGS. Contracted Gaussian basis sets for molecular calculations. I. Second row atoms, Z=11-18. J Chem Phys1980; 72(10): 5639–5648.
51.
HuberKPHerzbergG. Molecular spectra and molecular structure: constants of diatomic molecules, vol. 4. New York, NY: Springer; Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1979.
52.
BornmannLMarxW. The wisdom of citing scientists. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2014; 65(6): 1288–1292.
53.
WangJ. Unpacking the Matthew effect in citations. J Informetr2014; 8(2): 329–339.
54.
MacRobertsMHMacRobertsBR. The mismeasure of science: citation analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2017; 69(3): 474–482.
55.
MarxWBornmannL. How accurately does Thomas Kuhn’s model of paradigm change describe the transition from the static view of the universe to the big bang theory in cosmology? A historical reconstruction and citation analysis. Scientometrics2010; 84(2): 441–464.
