Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 481–488 | Cite as

What is the primordial reference for ...?—Redux

Article
  • 210 Downloads

Abstract

Eugene Garfield’s quest of the primordial reference for the familiar and ubiquitous phrase ‘Publish or Perish’ led him to a 1942 monograph (The Scientist, 10(12):11, 1996). This quest is resumed two decades later here. Text mining applied to a sample of the mainstream and academic literature ever published, as well as crowdsourcing, yielded earlier references dating from 1934 and 1927. This search experiment suggests that ‘primordial reference chasing’ in full-text corpora remains an open problem for the community intersecting bibliometrics and information retrieval. Addressing it has the potential to rejuvenate Garfield’s work on historio-bibliography to improve our understanding of the genesis and diffusion of ideas, concepts, and associated metaphors.

Keywords

Primordial reference chasing Publish or Perish Eugene Garfield 

References

  1. Bowman, I. (1934). William Morris Davis [Obituary]. The Geographical Review, 24(2), 177–181. JSTOR: 208785.Google Scholar
  2. Bruza, P., & Weeber, M. (2008). Literature-based discovery (Vol. 15). Information science and knowledge management. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68690-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, J., Brenner, A., Kiser, K., Krot, M., Llewellyn, C., & Snyder, R. (2009). JSTOR—data for research. In M. Agosti, J. Borbinha, S. Kapidakis, C. Papatheodorou, & G. Tsakonas (Eds.), ECDL’09: Proceedings of the 13th European conference on research and advanced technology for digital libraries (Vol. 5714, pp. 416–419). LNCS. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04346-8_48.
  4. Cabanac, G. (2014). Extracting and quantifying eponyms in full-text articles. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1631–1645.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1091-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Case, C. M. (1927–1928). Scholarship in sociology. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 323–340. Retrieved from http://www.sudoc.fr/036493414.
  6. Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. The American Sociologist, 2(4), 195–201. JSTOR: 27701277.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, A. W. F. (2005). System to rank scientists was pedalled by Jeffreys [correspondence]. Nature, 437(7061), 951.  https://doi.org/10.1038/437951e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garfield, E. (1959). A unified index to science. In Proceedings of the international conference on scientific information (Vol. 1, pp. 461–474). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council.Google Scholar
  9. Garfield, E. (1967). Primordial concepts, citation indexing, and historio-bibliography. The Journal of Library History, 2(3), 235–249. JSTOR: 25540056.Google Scholar
  10. Garfield, E. (1996). What is the primordial reference for the phrase ‘publish or perish’? [commentary]. The Scientist, 10(12), 11. Retrieved from http://the-scientist.com/17052.
  11. Garfield, E., Pudovkin, A. I., & Istomin, V. S. (2002). Algorithmic citation-linked historiography—mapping the literature of science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 14–24.  https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450390102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giles, J. (2005). Science in the web age: Start your engines. Nature, 438(7068), 554–555.  https://doi.org/10.1038/438554a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harzing, A.-W. (2010). The Publish or Perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne, Australia: Tarma Software Research.Google Scholar
  14. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurt, L. (1961). Publish and perish. College English, 23(1), 5–10.  https://doi.org/10.2307/373930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacso, P. (2005). As we my search—Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537–1547. JSTOR: 24110924.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, L., Killough, K., & Thomas, S. L. (2012). A 10 year collaboration—still going strong, Ulrich’s and ISSN. The Serials Librarian, 62(1–4), 151–154.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526x.2012.652907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kennedy, H. C. (1972). Who discovered Boyer’s law? The American Mathematical Monthly, 79(1), 66–67.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2978134.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS One, 9(5), e93949.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin, Y., Michel, J.-B., Aiden, E. L., Orwant, J., Brockman, W., & Petrov, S. (2012). Syntactic annotations for the Google Books Ngram corpus. In ACL’12: Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 169–174). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://aclweb.org/anthology/P12-3029.
  22. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1986). Quantitative measures of communication in science: A study of the formal level. Social Studies of Science, 16(1), 151–172.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631286016001008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2010). Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayr, P., Frommholz, I., & Cabanac, G. (2017). Report on the 5th International Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval (BIR 2017). SIGIR Forum, 51(1), 29–35.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3130332.3130337.
  25. McCain, K. W. (2014). Assessing obliteration by incorporation in a full-text database: JSTOR, economics, and the concept of “bounded rationality”. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1445–1459.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1237-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCain, K. W. (2015). Mining full-text journal articles to assess obliteration by incorporation: Herbert A. Simon’s concepts of bounded rationality and satisficing in economics, management, and psychology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2187–2201.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/2027/mdp.39015008014428.Google Scholar
  28. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623. JSTOR: 234750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., The Google Books Team, et al. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644.
  31. Molarino, M., McLuhan, C., & Toye, W. (Eds.). (1987). Letters of Marshall McLuhan. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Price, D. J. d. S., & Beaver, D. d. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011–1018.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Soete, L., Schneegans, S., Eröcal, D., Angathevar, B., & Rasiah, R. (2015). A world in search of an effective growth strategy. In S. Schneegans (Ed.), UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030 (Chap. 1, pp. 20–55). Paris: UNESCO Reference Works. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf.
  34. Stigler, S. M. (1980). Stigler’s law of eponymy. In T. F. Gieryn (Ed.), Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 39(1), pp. 147–157). Robert K. Merton Festschrift Volume.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02775.x.
  35. Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review [version 3; referees: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research, 5, 632.  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3.
  36. Tenopir, C. (1995). Authors and readers: The keys to success or failure for electronic publishing. Library Trends, 43(4), 571–591.Google Scholar
  37. Thomas, K. S. (1992). The development of eponymy: A case study of the Southern blot. Scientometrics, 24(3), 405–417.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02051038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Sleeping Beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472.  https://doi.org/10.1023/b:scie.0000018543.82441.f1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ware, M. & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. The Hague: International Association of Scientific. Retrieved from http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf.
  40. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355. https://dx.doi.org/b57vc7.
  41. Wilson, L. (1942). The academic man: A study in the sociology of a profession. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ye, F. Y. & Bornmann, L. (forthcoming). “Smart Girls” versus “Sleeping Beauties” in the sciences: The identification of instant and delayed recognition by using the citation angle. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23846.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science Department, IRIT UMR 5505 CNRSUniversity of ToulouseToulouse cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations