The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Tantalus and the Aliens: Publications, Audiences and the Search for Gravitational Waves
Abstract
Different audiences at different distances from the core-set read scientific papers in different ways. If the institutional circumstances are right, an `inner audience' may try to control an outer audience's reading. In Physics, the literature is sufficiently open to allow some papers that have no credibility with the mainstream to be published. This normally causes no problem within `core-groups' of scientists, because the orthodox interpretation is widely understood. There can still be trouble, however, from those who have not been socialized into the core-group's interpretative framework. Strangers to the field may give credence to papers which the core-group considers to be interpretatively dead. The `strangers' to which I refer are not scientific antagonists but scientists in different specialisms to those in the core-group, as well as policymakers and funders. A problem arises for the core-group when non-core-groupers are drawn into important decisions - as when a Big Science is fighting for funds. The case of heterodox publications in gravitational radiation is examined. It is shown that papers published between 1985 and 1995, of which the core-group could normally be expected to think, `Ho hum - more of this', were strongly attacked. The institutional background of these attacks is explained.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“His results suggest - in agreement with the social constructivist view of citing behavior -that the reception of papers varies with different scientific communities which are receiving them.”
From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as Collins (1999)
In the citing paper
“In agreement with the constructive view of citing behavior the results of Collins (1999) suggest that political and economic forces within the research process led to some papers being ignored by scientists, while some were picked out.”
From What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008) · cites this paper as Collins, 1999
Citations
Cited by
What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2008) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/00220410810844150 · Cited by 1,607
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, H. M.
- Affiliations
- Cardiff University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Collins, H. M.
- ORCID
- Collins, H. M.
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-04
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 163-197
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W2016997723
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 4.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Studies of Science (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- scholarly publishing, scientific credibility, gravitational waves, big science, research funding, science policy
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: Tantalus and the Aliens: Publications, Audiences and the Search for Gravitational Waves. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/030631299029002001
- The paper
- Collins, H. M. (1999). Tantalus and the Aliens: Publications, Audiences and the Search for Gravitational Waves. Social Studies of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631299029002001
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.