• Garfield E. "Identifying Nobel Class Scientists and the ...

Index to Slides (click on Slide Number to go directly to the slide)
Slide 1 : 50 Most-cited Authors for 1967 Slide 9 : Papers by Albert Einstein
Slide 2 : Lowry Citation Classics Slide 10: Papers and books by Einstein and the papers citing him.
Slide 3 : Citation Frequency Distribution 1900-August 2005
Slide 11: Year-by-year citations to Watson-Crick 1953
Slide 4 : Most-Cited Journals 2004 JCR Total Cites Slide 12: HistCite of Francis Crick, GCS
Slide 5 : Most-Cited Journals Based on Cites to two years to
Slide 13 & 14: Most-Cited Papers through July 2005.
2002-03 articles Slide 15: Web of Science (WoS)
Slide 6: JCR 2004 Sorted by number of published articles
Slide 16: Hirsch Index for recent Nobelists in Medicine
Slide 7: Distribution of Published Articles and Citations
Slide 17: Hirsch Index for recent Nobelists in Chemistry
Slide 8 : HistCite Slide 18: Hirsch Index for recent Nobelists in Physics
Slides 19 & 20: H-Index for Highly Cited Authors
________________________________________________________________________________
Identifying Nobel Class Scientists and the Uncertainties thereof
Presented by
Eugene Garfield, Chairman Emeritus
Thomson ISI, 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia PA 19104
Fax: 215-387-1266 Tel. 215-243-2205
garfield@codex.cis.upenn.edu
www.eugenegarfield.org
European Conference on Scientific Publication In Medicne and Biomedicine,
Lund, Sweden, April 21, 2006 and at the Third Nordic Conference on Scholarly
Communication, Lund, Sweden, April 25, 2006.
Abstract
Out of about one million or so scientists who have published to date, 10,000 can be
considered to be “of Nobel Class.” Approximately 750 of them have won Nobel Prizes.
While there are exceptions due to the vagaries of the subjective (non-random) selection
process, Nobel Laureates publish five times the average number of papers but their work
is cited 30 to 50 times the average. Nobelists will invariably publish several Citation
Classics. A few have published super methodology classics like the polymerase chain
reaction of Kerry Mullis. Unlike the latter, most Nobel Prize winners have high H-Indexes.
Many also appear on ISI’s “HighlyCited” authors listings. Authors of “hot papers” may also
be leading candidates for future awards. Following the Law of Concentration, Nobel class
scientists publish in a small group of high impact journals. These journals also account for
a large percentage of the papers published and an even larger percentage of citations.
Scientists like Albert Einstein and James Watson have published relatively few highly cited
papers, but their work is characterized by being cited by other super-cited Nobel class
scientists. This can be visualized by historiograhic analyses using HistCite for algorithmic
historiography.
About one year ago I was contacted about addressing this conference about conducting
research assessment through citation analysis. When I saw the list of speakers in
January, I realized that the meeting is primarily concerned with open access publications,
which is quite another matter, although there are many claims that open access not only
increases readership but citation impact as well. However, we have leading open access
experts here, including my old friends Steve Harnad and Jan Velterop. So I will have very
little to say about open access or research assessment per se.
 2
I suspect the organizers wanted my name on the program to inject a note of nostalgia if
not controversy. Whatever their motivation I interpreted my remit to be the topic I have
discussed in dozens of Current Contents essays about the Nobel Prize as well as
“scientists of Nobel Class.”1 Not surprisingly, everything related to the Nobel Prize
fascinates most scientists, journalists, and librarians.2
Last year I attended the 10th International Conference of the International Society for
Scientometrics and Informatics in Stockholm. The library director of the Karolinska
Institute, Per Olsson, showed me the building where the Nobel committees meet. Shortly
thereafter, I sent him a letter by Wilhelm Odelberg,3 the former Chief Librarian of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences, written in 1965. I had found the letter last year when I was
weeding some old files. Odelberg wrote to ISI a year or so after the launch of the Science
Citation Index in 1964, suggesting that we add several additional Academy journals in the
Arkiv series then published for mathematics, botany, etc. He gratuitously volunteered the
comment that:
“the SCI is very useful, and it is of great value to us especially when we make the
preliminary investigations for the election of Nobel Prize winners.”
When I tried to contact Odelberg last year I learned that he had passed away in 2002. It is
noteworthy that he was editor of several volumes on “The Nobel Prize” published by
Elsevier.
Why do I mention this 40 years after we began the SCI? During those four decades I was
asked repeatedly whether the Nobel committees make use of the SCI data in their
deliberations. Odelberg made no bones about the fact that SCI was “used” by him in
connection with the committees’ deliberations. This is quite similar to my own use of SCI
on hundreds of occasions to help select and authenticate nominees in Philadelphia for the
Franklin Institute Medals and the John Scott Awards of the City of Philadelphia.4 The SCI
has also helped to suggest additional names that might be considered. In the case of the
Nobel Prize, nominations are supported by expert testimony of other scientists often of
Nobel Class themselves.
Had I known about Oldeberg’s letter back in the 1960’s I would surely have referred to it
frequently but I would have had to note its ambiguity. Odelberg’s comments
notwithstanding, he and the Nobel Committees did not consult or use the SCI as a
systematic selection tool to generate lists of candidates, but rather to help confirm the
impact of their work and the accuracy of their bibliographies.
 3
In the seventies, I was asked to tour local chapters of the American Chemical Society to
discuss information retrieval systems. Not being certain what would interest the diverse
audiences involved I prepared six different lectures and read their titles to the audience.
Almost invariably, instead of “Chemical Information Retrieval,” they would chose the
topic “How to forecast Nobel Prize Winners.”
How did I have the hubris to take up this subject? In the late sixties, Irving Sher and I
had performed a simple bibliometric exercise on the 1966 SCI database. This analysis
showed that Nobel prize winners publish five times as often as the average author but
they are cited 30 to 50 times the average.5 By using the word “forecast,” I was of
1
course hedging from the more arrogant suggestion that one could “predict” the Nobel
Prizes as is often attempted by journalists. To predict is really out of the question
because the process by which Nobel, and other prizes, are selected is not in fact
systematic. How the selections occur is too involved to discuss here but the process is
the subject of dozens of papers and books. Especially noteworthy is Harriet
Zuckerman’s classic, The Scientific Elite.6.002
The Nobel choices depend upon the
subjective vagaries of the committees involved, both with respect to the field chosen
and the individuals chosen to represent the field.
Each year ISI creates lists of highly cited authors that have a high probability of being
selected as Nobelists in biomedicine, physics, chemistry, and economics. We have
never attempted to forecast the prize in literature or peace. We have found, that
inevitably the committees choose scientists and scholars that the worldwide scientific
community has already implicitly recognized as being of Nobel class. This recognition
is expressed through the “elections” that take place regularly in the published literature.
Robert K. Merton used this voting metaphor to describe how literature citations reflect
the influence of individual scientists.
A few years after we reported to the 1967 ONR Conference on Research effectiveness
the publication output and citation frequencies of Nobel Prize winners, we published a
7
list of the 50 most cited authors of 1967 in Nature3. Of these, Murray Gellman and
DHR Barton received the Nobel in 1969. Eleven additional authors on the list had or
subsequently received the prize in the year indicated in parens. And that was at a time
when we were limited to using so-called first author data. We missed a few whose
names were usually not listed as first authors, an example being 1955 co-winner
Jacques Monot of France who regularly published together with Francois Jacob.
Subsequently, ISI was able to expand the citation database to include all authors.
 Back to Page 1
Slide #1: 4
50 MOST CITED AUTHORS FOR 1967
TIMES TIMES
RANK AUTHOR CITED RANK AUTHOR CITED
1 LOWRY OH 2921 26 ELIEL EL 121
2 CHANCE B 1374 27 STREITWIESER A 717
3 *LANDAU LD 1174 28 MULlLIKEN RS 712
4 *BROWN HC (1979) 1150 29 *JACOB F (1965) 711
5 *PAULING L(54 & 62) 1063 30 *BORN M (1954) 710
6 *GELLMANN M (1969) 942 31 BRACHET J 706
7 COTTON FA 940 32 WINSTEIN S 702
8 *POPLE JA (1998) 933 33 ALBERT A 687
9 BELLAMY LJ 906 34 LUFT JH 674
10 SNEDECOR GW 904 35 DEDUVE C 673
11 *BOYER PD (1997) 893 36 VONEULER US 668
12 BAKER BR 876 37 FIESER LF 666
13 KOLTHOFF IM 853 38 HUISGEN R 667
14 *HERZBERG G (1971) 842 39 NOVIKOFF AB 655
15 FISCHER F 826 40 GOODWIN TW 643
16 SEITZ F 822 41 *BARTON DHR(1969)632
17 DJERASSI C 801 42 FISHER RA 631
18 BERGMEYER HU 754 43 BATES DR 627
19 WEBER G 750 44 *FLORY PJ (1974) 626
20 REYNOLDS ES 748 45 STAHL E 626
21 *MOTT NF (1977) 741 46 DEWAR MJS 619
22 *ECCLES JC (1963) 737 47 GILMAN H 618
23 FEIGL F 729 48 FOLCH J 618
24 FREUD S 727 49 DISCHE Z 614
25 PEARSE AGE 726 50 GLICK D 609
* = Author has received a Nobel Prize.
 5
The number of Nobel Prize winners is miniscule in comparison to the total population of
scientists. Only 776 people have been awarded the Nobel prize in its 100 year history.
But for every Nobel Prize winner there are far more scientists “of Nobel Class.” The
relevant National Academies of the United States include the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
Their total membership is about 5,000, of which about 2,000 are in the NAS. Many
decades ago I discussed these numbers with the President of the NAS. He volunteered
that for almost every elected academy member there were probably several more
equally deserving non-members both in the United States and abroad. So if we want to
round off the numbers and take into account the worldwide population of pure and
applied scientists, engineers, and mathematicians there are probably 5,000 to 10,000
who should be considered as “of Nobel Class.” That represents about 1% of the million
or more scientists who publish. Derek deSolla Price demonstrated long ago that a large
number of scientists publish once and then are never heard from again. Many of these
published papers based on their doctoral dissertations, and are never heard from
again.8
A further manifestation of my estimate of Nobel Class scientists is found in a free web
site posted by Thomson ISI called HighlyCited Authors. This database presently lists
about 7,000 authors including from 200 to 300 in each of 21 categories such as
molecular biology, engineering, agricultural science, pharmacology, clinical medicine,
and mathematics. And the threshold for inclusion in each category varies since the
citation and publication productivity in each field varies. The HighlyCited Authors
database would be increased significantly were it not limited to the past ten years of SCI
data. Many living Nobel class scientists who published their highest impact work in
previous decades do not show up on these lists.
Incidentally, the University of Lund is represented by three of the 55 Swedish scientists
in the database –10 them in agricultural science, 8 in neuroscience, 7 in pharmacology,
6 in biology and biochemistry, 3 in materials science.
Some of you may recall the series of essays I published on each crop of annual Nobel
Prizes during the eighties and nineties.9 These reports demonstrated that Nobel Prize
winners almost invariably publish Citation Classics. Last year I posted a searchable full
text database at www.citationclassics.org 10 Slide #2 shows the commentary by Oliver
H. Lowry on his blockbuster – the most cited paper in history with 300,000 explicit
citations. He also published three other Citation Classics.
SLIDE 2: LOWRY CITATION CLASSICS Back to Page 1 6
2
 Back to Page 1 7
SLIDE 3: CITATION FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 1900-AUGUST 2005
To give you an idea of the frequency of putative Citation Classics, consider slide # 3.
About one half of one percent of cited papers were cited over 200 times. Out of
about 38 million source items, about half were not cited at all. Only 5,000 papers
were cited over 1,000 times, my arbitrary definition of a super citation classic.
As demonstrated in Slide 3, Citation Classics represent less than one tenth of one
percent of papers published. Nevertheless in absolute terms, there are over twenty
thousand that were cited over five hundred or more times
CITATION FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 1900-AUGUST, 2005
(articles cited at least once)
Citation Number of % of
Frequency Papers WOS
>10,000 61 0.00%
5,000-9,000 120 0.00%
4,000-4,999 116 0.00%
3,000-3,999 215 0.00%
2,000-2,999 664 0.00%
1,000-1,999 3,887 0.02%
900-999 1,232 0.00%
800-899 1,762 0.01%
700-799 2,614 0.01%
600-699 4,077 0.02%
500-599 6,637 0.03%
400-499 12,557 0.06%
300-399 27,059 0.14%
200-299 74,025 0.37%
100-199 343,269 1.73%
50-99 953,064 4.83%
25-49 2,006,529 10.1%
15-24 2,226,603 11.2%
10-14 2,106,995 10.6%
5-9 3,891,542 19.5%
2-4 4,931,952 24.7%
1 3,343,789 16.7%
Items Cited 19,938,769 100.1%
Total Items
in File 38,163,319
 8
Back to Page 1
SLIDE 4: MOST-CITED JOURNALS 2004 JCR TOTAL CITES
Another characteristic of Nobel class work is the small list of journals in which their classic
articles are published. While prolific Nobel prize winners may publish once or twice in
hundreds of different journals their most cited works are invariably published in the small core
of high impact journals. This phenomena is sometimes called the law of scattering but in the
case of classic work, my Law of Concentration is more relevant.11 Slide 4 is based on the 2004
JCR. The column for total cites identifies the journals most cited based on 100 years of cited
data.
JCR 2004 SORTED BY TOTAL CITES TO ALL YEARS
2004 2004
2004 Cites to Rank Total
Rank Journal Title Total Cites Impact 2003/02 2003/02 Articles
1 J BIOL CHEM 405,017 6.36 82,355 1 6,585
2 NATURE 363,374 32.18 56,255 3 878
3 PNAS 345,309 10.45 58,905 2 3,084
4 SCIENCE 332,803 31.85 55,297 4 845
5 J AMER CHEM SOC 231,890 6.90 39,170 6 3,167
6 PHYS REV LETT 229,765 7.22 42,753 5 3,575
7 PHY REVIEW B 185,905 3.08 31,270 7 4,964
8 NEJM 159,498 38.57 28,696 9 316
9 ASTROPHYSICAL J 144,264 6.24 29,524 8 2,478
10 J CHEM PHYSICS 138,693 3.11 16,015 18 2,772
11 CELL 136,472 28.39 17,800 17 288
12 LANCET 126,002 21.71 22,147 13 415
13 CIRCULATION 115,133 12.56 26,320 11 1,129
14 APPLIED PHYS LETT 112,516 4.31 27,596 10 3,731
15 J IMMUNOLOGY 108,602 6.49 21,203 14 1,793
16 J GEOPHYS RES 105,601 2.84 14,151 19 2,085
17 CANCER RESEARCH 105,196 7.69 18,402 16 1,253
18 BLOOD 97,885 9.78 25,139 12 1,206
19 BIOCHEMISTRY 96,809 4.01 13,591 20 1,687
20 J NEUROSCIENCE 93,263 7.91 19,624 15 1,233
 9
Back to Page 1
SLIDE 5: MOST-CITED JOURNALS BASED ON CITES TO TWO YEARS TO 2002-03 ARTICLES
Slide 5 shows the same list but the data are sorted by citations to the two years used to calculate the
2004 impact factor. The list is identical but the rankings change somewhat. For example, Applied
Physics Letters is 14th on the first list but moves to 10th on the second list.
JCR 2004 SORTED BY TOTAL CITES TO 2003/02
2004 2004 2004 Rank
Cites to Total Total 2004
Rank Journal Title 2003/02 Cites Impact Articles Total
1 J OF BIOL CHEM 82,355 405,017 6.36 6,585 1
2 PNAS 58,905 345,309 10.45 3,084 3
3 NATURE 56,255 363,374 32.18 878 2
4 SCIENCE 55,297 332,803 31.85 845 4
5 PHYS REV LETT 42,753 229,765 7.22 3,575 6
6 J AMER CHEM SOC 39,170 231,890 6.90 3,167 5
7 PHYSICAL REVIEW B 31,270 185,905 3.08 4,964 7
8 ASTROPHYSICAL J 29,524 144,264 6.24 2478 9
9 NEJM 28,696 159,498 38.57 316 8
10 APPLIED PHYSICS LETT 27,596 112,516 4.31 3,731 14
11 CIRCULATION 26,320 115,133 12.56 1,129 13
12 BLOOD 25,139 97,885 9.78 1,206 18
13 LANCET 22,147 126,002 21.71 415 12
14 J OF IMMUNOLOGY 21,203 108,602 6.49 1,793 15
15 J OF NEUROSCIENCE 19,624 93,263 7.91 1,233 20
16 CANCER RESEARCH 18,402 105,196 7.69 1,253 17
17 CELL 17,800 136472 28.39 288 11
18 J OF CHEM PHYSICS 16,015 138,693 3.11 2,772 10
19 J OF GEOPHYS RES 14,151 105,601 2.84 2,085 16
20 BIOCHEMISTRY 13,591 96,809 4.01 1,687 19
 10
Back to Page 1
SLIDE 6: JCR 2004 SORTED BY NUMBER OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES
In contrast to citation impact, Slide 6 provides a ranking by number of
articles published in 2004, and produces yet another perspective. The
asterisked journals are new to the top 20 list.
JCR 2004 SORTED BY NUMBER OF ARTICLES
Total Impact
Journal Articles
Cites Factor
LECT NOTES COMPUT SC* 16,370 32,739 0.51
J BIOL CHEM 6,585 405,017 6.36
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 4,964 185905 3.08
APPLIED PHYSICS LETT 3,731 112,516 4.31
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETT 3,575 229765 7.22
J AMER CHEM SOC 3,167 231,890 6.90
PNAS 3,084 345,309 10.45
J CHEM PHYSICS 2,772 138,693 3.11
J APPLIED PHYSICS 2,684 84,947 2.26
J PHYSICAL CHEM B* 2,570 46,122 3.83
ASTROPHYSICAL J 2,478 144,264 6.24
BIOCHEM BIOPH RES CO* 2,312 64,346 2.90
JPN J APPL PHYS* 2,289 25,949 1.14
PHYSICAL REVIEW E* 2,282 42,737 2.35
PHYSICAL REVIEW D* 2,277 78,709 5.16
TETRAHEDRON LETT* 2,133 67,752 2.48
J GEOPHYS RES 2,085 105,601 2.84
LECT NOTES ARTIF INT* 1,877 3,905 0.25
ASTRON ASTROPHYS* 1,870 63,293 3.69
MATER SCI FORUM* 1,869 6,018 0.50
* = Not on previous slides
 Back to Page 1
11
SLIDE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLISHED ITEMS AND CITATIONS
Indeed, as documented repeatedly, a small percentage of journals accounts for a large
percentage of everything published while accounting for an even larger percentage of
citations. Whether open access will change these characteristics or not remains to be
seen, but in the meantime don’t expect to find Nobel class scientists publishing in
obscure journals.
Distribution of Published Items & Citations Among S cience Journals 2004
(S cience Citation Index)
110%
Approximately
100%
6,000 Journals
90%
80%
70%
Citations
60%
50%
Source Items
40%
30%
20%
10%
Total Cites
Total Source Items
0%
1 10 100 1000 10000
Number of Journals
 12
SLIDE 8: HISTCITE Back to Page 1
Back in the 1960’s, just shortly after we began to publish the SCI, we proposed using citation data to
algorithmically construct historical maps of scientific fields in the form of historiographs. In our first
experiment we traced the evolution of genetics research from Mendel to Watson-Crick and subsequent
key events to 1960. That work has now been translated into software called HistCite. HistCite
produces a series of tables and historiographs which identify various bibliometric features but one in
particular turns out to be characteristic of Nobel Class work -- its multi-generational impact, an idea
which originally was discussed by Irv Sher and me a l963 paper “Citation Indexing in Sociological and
Historical Research.12
HISTCITE™
Bibiliographic Analysis and Visualization Software
HistCite is a flexible software solution to aid researchers in visualizing the results of literature searches in the
Web of Science. It provides additional perspectives on information retrieval from the Web of Science.
HistCite creates data tables and historiographs in an HTML format readable in a web browser.
What Can I Do With HistCite?
Identify the key literature in a research field
By analyzing the results of a keyword search you can identify:
•papers important to the development of the topic
•important papers "missed" by your keyword search
•most prolific and most cited authors and journals on the topic
•other keywords that can be used to expand the collection
Analyze publication productivity and citation rates within a collection of research papers
Compare characteristics such as:
•countries and institutions that authors publish from
•most prolific and most cited authors within the groups
•citation statistics for groups and subgroups (mean and median
citation rates of papers, number of authors per paper, etc.)
Reconstruct the history and development of a research field
Analyze the content of an author search to find:
•highly cited articles
•important co-author relationships
•earlier publications and documents important to the development
of the author’s work time line of the authors’ publications
•graphs showing the key papers and timeline of a research field.
 13
SLIDE 9: PAPERS BY ALBERT EINSTEIN Back to Page 1
Unlike the average modern Nobelist, Einstein published a relatively small number of papers. This year
we have been celebrating the four classic papers he published in 1905. They were well cited during his
lifetime but most citations to his work were made many years later.
Slide 9 shows you a page from a HistCite analysis of Albert Einstein’s papers. The number of times his
classic papers are cited is significant. Indeed even his H-Index of 53 is remarkable for that time.
PAPERS AND BOOKS BY ALBERT EINSTEIN (1900-1955)
Missing Links?: 6 Citation Matrix Historiographs Glossary HistCite Guide About
Nodes: 186, Authors: 39, Journals: 35, Outer References: 159, Words: 483
Yearly output | Document Type | Language | Institution | Institution with Subdivision | Country
Collection span: 1901 - 1961
View: Overview Sorted by year, source, volume, issue, page.
Page 1 of 2: [ 1 2 ]
# LCR NCR Node / Date / Journal / Author LCS GCS
1 0 0 1 1901 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 4 (3): 513-523 1 33
EINSTEIN A
Conclusions from capillarity phenomena
2 1 1 2 1902 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 8 (8): 798-814 0 6
EINSTEIN A
The thermodynamic theory of the potential differences between metals and complete
dissociation solutions of their salts and an electrical method towards the probing of
molecular power
3 0 1 3 1902 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 9 (10): 417-433 1 25
EINSTEIN A
Kinetic theory of the heat equilibrium and the second fundamental theorem of the
thermodynamics
4 0 0 4 1903 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 11 (5): 170-187 5 40
EINSTEIN A
A theory on the basics of thermodynamics
5 0 0 5 1904 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 14: 354 0 29
EINSTEIN A
Zur allgemeinen molekularen Theorie der Waerme
6 0 4 6 1905 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 17 (6): 132-148 2 372
EINSTEIN A
On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light
7 3 4 7 1905 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 17 (8): 549-560 3 1507
EINSTEIN A
On the motion of elements of Small Particles Suspended in Stationary Liquids as
required by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat
8 0 0 8 1905 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 17 (10): 891-921 7 713
EINSTEIN A
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies
9 1 1 9 1905 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 18 (13): 639-641 2 106
EINSTEIN A
Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?
10 1 2 10 1906 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 19 (2): 289-306 1 1620
EINSTEIN A
A new determination of molecular dimensions
 14
Back to Page 1
SLIDE 10: PAPERS AND BOOKS BY EINSTEIN AND THE PAPERS CITING HIM.
What is even more significant about Einstein’s work is the second generation of citation
impact as demonstrated in slide # 10. The twenty super Citation Classics that cited
Einstein include papers by Nobelists like Chardrasekhar (1983), Onsager (1968), and
Phil Anderson (1977). Paradigm breaking work of this kind is not only cited by super-
cited papers but may also be subject to the phenomenon called OBI.
Let’s turn from Einstein to the work of Watson and Crick. I’ll return to Einstein again
later.
Missing Links? Citation Matrix Graphs Glossary HistCite Guide About
PAPERS AND BOOKS BY ALBERT EINSTEIN (1900-1955)
AND PAPERS CITING ALBERT EINSTEIN (1900-1955)
Nodes: 16544, Authors: 17854, Journals: 2479, Outer References: 377380, Words: 15829
Collection span: 1901 - 2005
View: Overview. Sorted by GCS.
Page 1 of 166: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 | 101
# LCR NCR Node / Date / Journal / Author LCS GCS
1 14 101 1092 1943 REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS 15 (1): 1-89 206 4509
CHANDRASEKHAR S
Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy
2 0 0 882 1935 PHYSICAL REVIEW 47 (10): 777-780 2430 2430
EINSTEIN A; PODOLSKY B; ROSEN N
Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be
considered complete?
3 2 38 11433 1995 SCIENCE 269 (5221): 198-201 131 2342
ANDERSON MH; ENSHER JR; MATTHEWS MR;
WIEMAN CE; CORNELL EA
Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic
Vapor
4 1 2 11 1906 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 19 (2): 289-306 1703 1703
EINSTEIN A
A new determination of molecular dimensions
5 18 720 9516 1990 REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS 62 (2): 251-341 28 1669
 15
HANGGI P; TALKNER P; BORKOVEC M
Reaction-Rate Theory - 50 Years after Kramers
6 4 12 769 1931 PHYSICAL REVIEW 38 (12): 2265-2279 90 1564
ONSAGER L
Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. II.
7 11 25 10552 1993 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 70 (13): 1895- 406 1563
1899
BENNETT CH; BRASSARD G; CREPEAU C; JOZSA R;
PERES A; et al.
Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State Via Dual Classicala and
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels
8 3 4 7 1905 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 17 (8): 549-560 1536 1536
EINSTEIN A
The motion of elements of small particles suspended in stationary
liquids as required in the molecular-kinetic theory of heat
9 1 17 2470 1963 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE 51 (1): 89-& 47 1520
JAYNES ET; CUMMINGS FW
Comparison of Quantum and Semiclassical Radiation Theories
with Application To Beam Maser
10 1 34 1097 1944 BELL SYSTEM TECHNICAL JOURNAL 23: 282- 25 1433
332
RICE SO
Mathematical analysis of random noise
SLIDE 11: YEAR-BY-YEAR CITATIONS TO WATSON-CRICK PAPER
Slide 11 shows the year by year citation frequency to the historic 1953 paper on the
“Double Helix structure of DNA” paper by Watson and Crick. It has been explicitly cited
only about 3,000 times in its 50 year lifetime. This is characteristic of paradigm breaking
papers which suffer the fate of obliteration by incorporation (OBI). The double helix
structure of DNA suffered this fate when it became common wisdom in molecular biology
within a decade or two. But then remarkably, citations to that paper have gone up
significantly in the last decade as seen in the HistCite historiogram for year-by-year
citations for 1953 to 2005. Note especially the right hand column since 1993.
 Back to Page 1
Slide #11 16
YEAR-BY-YEAR CITATIONS TO WATSON-CRICK 1953
Year Count Percent 1980 24 0.8
1953 16 0.5 1981 42 1.4
1954 31 1.1 1982 33 1.1
1955 36 1.2 1983 46 1.6
1956 50 1.7 1984 45 1.5
1957 32 1.1 1985 47 1.6
1958 44 1.5 1986 39 1.3
1959 42 1.4 1987 35 1.2
1960 44 1.5 1988 36 1.2
1961 52 1.8 1989 42 1.4
1962 53 1.8 1990 55 1.9
1963 82 2.8 1991 38 1.3
1964 52 1.8 1992 48 1.6
1965 44 1.5 1993 86 2.9
1966 42 1.4 1994 57 2.0
1967 29 1.0 1995 60 2.1
1968 37 1.3 1996 80 2.7
1969 35 1.2 1997 73 2.5
1970 29 1.0 1998 86 2.9
1971 30 1.0 1999 73 2.5
1972 30 1.0 2000 94 3.2
1973 35