Reprinted with permission of
The Scientist
18(11) p.8, June 7 2004
The Myth of Delayed Recognition
Citation
analysis demonstrates that premature discovery, while rare, does occur:
Nearly all significant research is normally cited soon
after
publication
By Wolfgang Glänzel and
Eugene Garfield
Most scientists can name an example
of an important discovery that had
little initial impact on contemporary research. Mendel's work is a
classic example.1,2
The phenomenon of delayed recognition is sometimes invoked in disputes
about the validity of citation analysis in evaluating scientists.
However, as bibliometricians know, actual examples of delayed
recognition are rare.
To identify such papers and to shed
some light on their role in
scientific communication, we analyzed programmatically the citation
histories of the 450,000 research and review articles indexed in the
1980 edition of the Science Citation
Index. Delayed recognition papers
were defined as those which, during a period of five years, were
initially rarely cited but then became highly cited during the next 15
years.3 Highly
cited was defined as at least 50 citations or 10 times the journal's
20-year cumulative impact factor.
The chance that a paper, uncited for
three to five years after
publication, will ever be cited is quite low, even in slowly aging
fields such as mathematics. The citation impact of papers not cited
initially usually remains low even 15 to 20 years later. Clearly, the
potential number of delayed recognition papers is extremely small.
Among initially poorly cited papers, only 60 were found that could be
considered highly cited during the subsequent 15 years. Thus, a
statistically marginal share of 1.3 per 10,000 papers published in 1980
were "neglected" at first, and then, belatedly, received relatively
high citational recognition.
But what are these papers about? As
expected, most (43%) are
life sciences papers, 22% are in physics and 12% each are in chemistry,
engineering, and mathematics. Four examples from different science
fields are listed below.
1. T. Ogino, M. Aoki, "Mechanism of
yellow luminescence in GaN," Jpn
J Appl Phys,
19:2395-405, 1980, presented the first in-depth study that explained
the mechanism of yellow luminescence in gallium nitride. This paper was
only cited twice until 1992. From 1996 onward, it received 20 to 30
citations per year, and the trend still continues with 261 cites to
date.
2. K.M. Fabian, "The intra-prostatic
partial catheter (urological
spiral)," Urologe-Ausgabe A,
19:236-8, 1980, suggested the idea of a temporary urethral stent, and
gave a description of the first intraprostatic partial catheter that
has become known as the "urological spiral." This paper received only
two citations until 1989. Although it was published in German, it was
well cited in the 1990s, and has been cited in 105 papers to date.
3. J. Feder, "Random sequential
adsorption," J Theor Biol,
87:237-54, 1980. A mathematical paper published in a biology journal,
it has been cited in 209 publications to date, especially in physics
journals. The author suggested a model to describe protein adsorption
on solid surfaces. The random sequential adsorption model has become
very popular.
4. G. Buchsbaum, "A spatial
processor model for object
color-perception," J Franklin Inst,
310:1-26, 1980, gave a clear physical interpretation and mathematical
foundation for the 'gray-world' model that is among the most widely
cited algorithms in color constancy-related literature. The paper was
cited once in 1984 and then in 128 papers after 1988.
Like many myths about the flaws of
citation analysis, the claims
about delayed recognition are extremely difficult to demonstrate. Each
of us has specific examples but, as the data demonstrate, they are
indeed the exception to the rule. Nearly all significant research is
well cited within the first three to five years of publication.3
Wolfgang Glänzel is senior
research fellow, Steunpunt
& Statistieken, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
Eugene Garfield is president and
founding editor of The Scientist; he is also chairman emeritus
of the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia.
References
1. E. Garfield, "Premature
discovery or delayed recognition--Why?" Curr Contents, 21:5-10,
1980; available online at garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v4p488y1979-80.pdf
2. E. Garfield, "Would
Mendel's work have been ignored if the Science Citation Index was
available 100 years ago?" Curr Contents, 47:5-6, 1970;
available online at garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/V1p069y1962-73.pdf
3. W. Glänzel et
al., "Better late than never? On the chance to become
highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon," Scientometrics,
58:571-86, 2003.
Other examples of delayed
recognition, including Inhibin,
Scanning Electron Microscopy, and the Genetics of Color Blindness,
which were identified by citation analysis, can be found at garfield.library.upenn.edu/delayedrecognition.html
|