The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Structure of Scientific Literatures I: Identifying and Graphing Specialties
Abstract
In this paper we report a first experiment using a new computer-based technique to identify clusters of highly interactive documents in science. We contend that these clusters represent the scientific specialties which currently exhibit high levels of activity. This technique, we believe, opens the way to a systematic exploration of the entire specialty structure of science, including both the internal structure of specialties and their relationship to one another. That science is a mosaic of specialties, and not a unified whole, either socially or intellectually, is a frequently made assumption, but only recently has this infra-structure of science become the subject of systematic study. Most scientists have intuitive notions about the subdivisions of their fields, but no observer, however broadly trained, can gain an overall perspective on the scientific mosaic. A series of recent studies has called attention to the importance of specialties as 'building blocks' of science. Crawford's paper' described how one specialty, sleep research, is effectively organized as a communication system around certain key individuals and research centres. Griffith and Mullins2 have argued that major changes in a variety of disciplines have been generated within small, socially coherent groups. *325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I 9I o6, USA.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Burton, K. (1956) · Biochemical Journal · doi:10.1042/bj0620315 · Cited by 14,090
Cited by
From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis
Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901883022002003 · Cited by 1,951
Web of Science as a Data Source for Research on Scientific and Scholarly Activity
Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00018 · Cited by 1,283
Virtual Work: Bridging Research Clusters
Raghuram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L., & Maruping, L. M. (2019) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2017.0020 · Cited by 426
Not by Productivity Alone: How Visibility and Specialization Contribute to Academic Earnings
Leahey, E. (2007) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240707200403 · Cited by 356
Leydesdorff, L. (1998) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02458391 · Cited by 347
On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation
Small, H. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000027310.68393.bc · Cited by 183
Self-citationGuo, L., Wang, D., Gu, F., Li, Y., Wang, Y., & Zhou, R. (2021) · Asia Pacific Education Review · doi:10.1007/s12564-021-09697-7 · Cited by 124
Comparing Journal and Paper Level Classifications of Science
Shu, F., Julien, C.-A., Zhang, L., Qiu, J., Zhang, J., & Larivière, V. (2019) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.005 · Cited by 95
Characteristics of a literature as predictors of relatedness between cited and citing works
Bonzi, S. (1982) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/asi.4630330404 · Cited by 79
Deng, S., & Xia, S. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03465-x · Cited by 49
Riviera, E. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23248 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Small, H., & Griffith, B. C.
- Venue
- Science Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1974-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-40
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163820799
- Cited by
- 731
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.87
- 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
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.