Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Ortega Hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress.

Cole, Jonathan R., Cole, Stephen·1972·Science

Abstract

Let us consider, then, some general conclusions that may be drawn from the findings reported in this study. The data allow us to question the view stated by Ortega, Florey, and others that large numbers of average scientists contribute substantially to the advance of science through their research . It seems, rather, that a relatively small number of physicists produce work that becomes the base for future discoveries in physics. We have found that even papers of relatively minor significance have used to a disproportionate degree the work of the eminent scientists. Although the conclusions of this paper may be reasonably clear, the implications of these data for the structure of scientific activity, at least in physics, need careful consideration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.178.4059.368

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S.
Venue
Science
Published
1972-10-27
Volume
178
Issue
4059
Pages
368-375
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W1974707207
Cited by
381
References
0
FWCI
20.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Ortega Hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.178.4059.368
The paper
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1972). The Ortega Hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4059.368

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.