Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity

  • Scientometric Datafiles
  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The empirical research on the sample of 385 eminent Croatian scientists was carried out in order to explore the patterns and factors of their scientific productivity. The study design made it possible to compare the results with those obtained in the 1990 survey on a sample of the research population. The average scientific productivity of eminent researchers is not only several times larger but also shows a more intensive scientific collaboration and orientation towards the international scientific arena. The most important predictors of the elite's productivity are also qualificational and organizational variables but of a more selective nature. By including the eminent scientists' gatekeeping roles, the explanation of their total, co-authored and foreign publications can be improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and notes

  1. L. Leydesdorff, The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 333–347, p. 336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. R. K. Merton,The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. Cole,Making Science: Between Nature and Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge/London, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Bloor,Knowledge and Social Imagery, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London/Boston, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K. D. Knorr-Cetina,The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  6. B. Latour, S. Woolgar,Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage, London/Bevery Hills, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  7. K. D. Knorr-Cetina, M. J. Mulkay (Eds.),Science Observed. Perspectives on the Social Studies of Science, Sage, London/Beverly Hills/New Delhi, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Whitley,The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Fuchs,The Professional Quest for Truth. A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Garrison, S. S. Herman, J. A. Lipton, Measuring characteristics of scientific research: A comparison of bibliographic and survey data,Scientometrics, 24 (1992) 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. J. R. Cole, S. Cole,Social Stratification in Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Oromaner, The Ortega hypothesis and influential articles in American sociology,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. W. E. Snizek, A Re-examination of the Ortega hypothesis: The Dutch case,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. A. J. Nederhof, A. F. J. Van Raan, A validation study of bibliometric indicators: The comparative performance of cum laude doctorates in chemistry,Scientometrics, 17 (1989) 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. H. Kretschmer, R. Mueller, A contribution to the dispute on the Ortega hypothesis: Connection between publication rate and stratification of scientists, tested by various methods,Scientometrics, 18 (1990) 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  16. H. Kretschmer, Measurement of social stratification. A contribution to the dispute on the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. M. H. MacRoberts, B. R. MacRoberts, Testing the Ortega hypothesis: Facts and artifacts,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 293–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. B. Line, The shoulder of giants, or the backs of mice?,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 297–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. M. J. Moravcsik, We must ask questions before giving answers,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. V. V. Nalimov, Scientists are not acrobats,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 303–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. L. Leydesdorff, Towards a theory of citation?,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. W. E. Snizek, In search of influence: The testing of the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 311–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. A. J. Meadows, Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 315–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. M. Oromaner, Ortega, obliteration and policy consequences,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 317–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. S. M. Lawani, The Ortega hypothesis, individual differences, and cumulative advantage,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 321–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. A. J. Nederhof, A. F. J. Van Raan, Citation theory and the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 325–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. H. Zuckerman, Citation analysis and complex problem of intellectual influence,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. H. Small, The significance of bibliographic references,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 339–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. F. Narin, To believe or not to believe,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 343–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. S. Cole, J. R. Cole, Testing the Ortega hypothesis: Millestone or millstone?,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. D. C. Pelz, F. M. Andrews,Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for Research and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  32. K. D. Knorr, R. Mittermeir, G. Aichholzer, G. Waller, Individual publication productivity as a social position effect in academic and industrial research units, in:F. M. Andrews (Ed.),Scientific Productivity. The Effectiveness of Research Groups in Six Countries, Cambridge University Press/Unesco, Cambridge, etc., 1979, pp. 55–94.

    Google Scholar 

  33. S. Kowalewska, Patterns of influence and the performance of research units, in:F. M. Andrews (Ed.),Scientific Productivity. The Effectiveness of Research Groups in Six Countries, Cambridge University Press/Unesco, Cambridge, etc., 1979, pp. 169–189.

    Google Scholar 

  34. A. G. Heffner, Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research,social Studies of Science, 9 (1979) 377–384.

    Google Scholar 

  35. K. Kumar, Role parity in international social science collaborative research: Research roles of U.S. researchers and their collaborators,Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation, 7 (1985) 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. Schulze, On the rise of scientific innovations and their acceptance in research groups: A sociopsychological study,Social Studies of Science, 20 (1990) 35–64.

    Google Scholar 

  37. T. Thagaard, Research environment, motivation and publication productivity,Science Studies, 4 (1991) 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  38. C. L. Mulford, L. Waldner-Haugrud, H. Gajbhiye, Variables associated with agricultural scientists' work alienation and publication productivity,Scientometrics, 27 (1993) 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. S. Hemlin, Research production in the arts and humanities. A questionnaire study. Paper presented to the workshop “Studies on the Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences” at Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 30 May, 1995.

  40. K. Prpić,Odrednice znanstvene produktivnosti (Determinants of Scientific Productivity), Institut za društvena istraživanja Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 1991, p. 36/37.

    Google Scholar 

  41. K. Prpic, The socio-cognitive frameworks of scientific productivity,Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. H. Zuckerman,Scientific Elite, Nobel Laureats in the United States, The Free Press/Collier Macmillan Publishers, New York/London, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  43. M. Frank Fox, Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review,Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 285–305.

    Google Scholar 

  44. The ratchet effect is a process in the social system of science which preserves the status of prominent scientists and prevents their falling below the reached level of eminency.See reference no. 2, p. 442.

    Google Scholar 

  45. R. K. Merton, H. Zuckerman, Age, aging and age structure in science, in:R. K. Merton,The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London, 1974, pp. 497–559.

    Google Scholar 

  46. P. Winkler, Some aspects of the evaluation of scientific and related performances of individuals,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. D. K. Simonton, Multiples, chance, genius, creativity, and zeitgeist, in:D. N. Jackson, J. P. Rushton (Eds),Scientific Excellence: Origins and Assessment, Sage, Newbury Park/Beverly Hills/London/New Delhi, 1987, pp. 98–128, quote at 126.

    Google Scholar 

  48. G. Sonnert, What makes a good scientist?: Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists,Social Studies of Science, 25 (1995) 35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Maletić (Ed.),Tko je tko u Hrvatskoj = Who is who in Croatia, Golden Marketing, Zagreb, 1993. The directory is made according to the international criteria and the standards of similar publications and it includes about 5,000 eminent scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, judges, attorneys, politicians, generals, bishops, sportment and journalists. About 4,000 of these persons live and work in Croatia and about 1,000 in other countries.

    Google Scholar 

  50. This expectation is based on the very few indicators on the elite social background of researchers that is even more elite in the groups of eminent scientists.See note no. 41. See alsoM. Roche, Y. Freites, Rise and twilight of the Venezuelan scientific community,Scientometrics, 23 (1992) 267–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Otherwise, the productivity studies on the samples of professionally active scientists avoid the problem of including the publications of the scientists who abandoned the profession, but it is a big problem with both the samples and the complete coverage of publications. SeeR. Wagner-Doebler, Where has the cumulative advantage gone? Some observations about the frequency distributions of scientific productivity, of duration of scientific participation, and of speed of publication,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. B. Klaić, Analysis of the scientific productivity of researchers from the Republic of Croatia for the period 1990–1991,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 133–152, p. 138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. S. Kyvik, Productivity differences, fields of learning and Lotka's law,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. S. Pressey, Age and the doctorate then and now,Journal of Higher Education, 33 (1962) 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  55. W. Hagstrom, Inputs, outputs and the prestige of university science departments,Sociology of Education, 44 (1971) 375–397.

    Google Scholar 

  56. F. Clemente, Early career determinants of research productivity,American Journal of Sociology, 79 (1973) 409–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. R. McGinnis, P. D. Allison, J. S. Long, Postdoctoral training in bio-science: Allocation and outcomes,Social Forces, 60 (1982) 701–722.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Research Zagreb, Amruševa 11, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Katarina Prpić

Authors
  1. Katarina Prpić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prpić, K. Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity. Scientometrics 36, 185–206 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017313

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017313

Keywords

Search

Navigation