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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References and notes
L. Leydesdorff, The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 333–347, p. 336.
R. K. Merton,The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London, 1974.
S. Cole,Making Science: Between Nature and Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge/London, 1992.
D. Bloor,Knowledge and Social Imagery, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London/Boston, 1976.
K. D. Knorr-Cetina,The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981.
B. Latour, S. Woolgar,Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage, London/Bevery Hills, 1979.
K. D. Knorr-Cetina, M. J. Mulkay (Eds.),Science Observed. Perspectives on the Social Studies of Science, Sage, London/Beverly Hills/New Delhi, 1983.
R. Whitley,The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984.
S. Fuchs,The Professional Quest for Truth. A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992.
Garrison, S. S. Herman, J. A. Lipton, Measuring characteristics of scientific research: A comparison of bibliographic and survey data,Scientometrics, 24 (1992) 359–370.
J. R. Cole, S. Cole,Social Stratification in Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London, 1981.
M. Oromaner, The Ortega hypothesis and influential articles in American sociology,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 3–10.
W. E. Snizek, A Re-examination of the Ortega hypothesis: The Dutch case,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 3–11.
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.
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.
H. Kretschmer, Measurement of social stratification. A contribution to the dispute on the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 97–113.
M. H. MacRoberts, B. R. MacRoberts, Testing the Ortega hypothesis: Facts and artifacts,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 293–296.
M. B. Line, The shoulder of giants, or the backs of mice?,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 297–298.
M. J. Moravcsik, We must ask questions before giving answers,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 299–302.
V. V. Nalimov, Scientists are not acrobats,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 303–304.
L. Leydesdorff, Towards a theory of citation?,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 305–310.
W. E. Snizek, In search of influence: The testing of the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 311–314.
A. J. Meadows, Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 315–316.
M. Oromaner, Ortega, obliteration and policy consequences,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 317–320.
S. M. Lawani, The Ortega hypothesis, individual differences, and cumulative advantage,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 321–324.
A. J. Nederhof, A. F. J. Van Raan, Citation theory and the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 325–328.
H. Zuckerman, Citation analysis and complex problem of intellectual influence,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 329–338.
H. Small, The significance of bibliographic references,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 339–342.
F. Narin, To believe or not to believe,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 343–344.
S. Cole, J. R. Cole, Testing the Ortega hypothesis: Millestone or millstone?,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 345–354.
D. C. Pelz, F. M. Andrews,Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for Research and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1976.
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.
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.
A. G. Heffner, Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research,social Studies of Science, 9 (1979) 377–384.
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.
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.
T. Thagaard, Research environment, motivation and publication productivity,Science Studies, 4 (1991) 5–18.
C. L. Mulford, L. Waldner-Haugrud, H. Gajbhiye, Variables associated with agricultural scientists' work alienation and publication productivity,Scientometrics, 27 (1993) 261–282.
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.
K. Prpić,Odrednice znanstvene produktivnosti (Determinants of Scientific Productivity), Institut za društvena istraživanja Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 1991, p. 36/37.
K. Prpic, The socio-cognitive frameworks of scientific productivity,Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 293–311.
H. Zuckerman,Scientific Elite, Nobel Laureats in the United States, The Free Press/Collier Macmillan Publishers, New York/London, 1977.
M. Frank Fox, Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review,Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 285–305.
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.
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.
P. Winkler, Some aspects of the evaluation of scientific and related performances of individuals,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 109–116.
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.
G. Sonnert, What makes a good scientist?: Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists,Social Studies of Science, 25 (1995) 35–55.
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.
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.
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.
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.
S. Kyvik, Productivity differences, fields of learning and Lotka's law,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 205–214.
S. Pressey, Age and the doctorate then and now,Journal of Higher Education, 33 (1962) 153–160.
W. Hagstrom, Inputs, outputs and the prestige of university science departments,Sociology of Education, 44 (1971) 375–397.
F. Clemente, Early career determinants of research productivity,American Journal of Sociology, 79 (1973) 409–419.
R. McGinnis, P. D. Allison, J. S. Long, Postdoctoral training in bio-science: Allocation and outcomes,Social Forces, 60 (1982) 701–722.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017313