Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 27 October 1972:
Vol. 178. no. 4059, pp. 368 - 375
DOI: 10.1126/science.178.4059.368
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Articles

The Ortega Hypothesis

Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress

Jonathan R. Cole 1 and Stephen Cole 2

1 Columbia University, New York 10027
2 State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook, New York 11790

Let us consider, then, some general conclusions that may be drawn from the findings reported in this study. The data allow us to question the view stated by Ortega, Florey, and others that large numbers of average scientists contribute substantially to the advance of science through their research. It seems, rather, that a relatively small number of physicists produce work that becomes the base for future discoveries in physics. We have found that even papers of relatively minor significance have used to a disproportionate degree the work of the eminent scientists. Although the conclusions of this paper may be reasonably clear, the implications of these data for the structure of scientific activity, at least in physics, need careful consideration.


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Bibliometric Analysis of Human Factors (1970-2000): A Quantitative Description of Scientific Impact.
J. D. Lee, A. Cassano-Pinche, and K. J. Vicente (2005)
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47, 753-766
   Abstract »    PDF »
The false 'Ortega Hypothesis': a literature science case study.
E. Szava-Kovats (2004)
Journal of Information Science 30, 496-508
   Abstract »    PDF »
Sociology on the World Wide Web.
W. S. Bainbridge (1995)
Social Science Computer Review 13, 508-523
   Abstract »    PDF »
Research Evaluation and the Generation of Big Science Policy.
D. E. CHUBIN (1987)
Science Communication 9, 254-277
   Abstract »    PDF »
A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation.
J. King (1987)
Journal of Information Science 13, 261-276
   Abstract »    PDF »
Federal Funding of Basic Research: The Red Tape Mill.
H. S. Gutowsky (1981)
Science 212, 636-641
   Abstract »    PDF »
The Relationship of Scientific Creativity in the Biological Sciences to Predoctoral Accomplishments and Experiences.
S. M. Segal, T. V. Busse, and R. S. Mansfield (1980)
American Educational Research Journal 17, 491-502
   Abstract »    PDF »
The Professional Production of Policy, Ideology, and Plans: Brookings and Resources for the Future.
I. Alpert and A. Markusen (1980)
Crit Sociol 9, 94-106
   PDF »
Chance and eminence in science: Ecclesiastes II.
S. P. Turner and D. E. Chubin (1979)
Social Science Information 18, 437-449
Differences between requested and cited literature in a group of dairy research scientists.
A. Mendez and C. Blanco (1979)
Journal of Information Science 1, 113-116
   Abstract »    PDF »
Knowledge Creation: An Overview.
S. D. Nelson (1979)
Science Communication 1, 123-149
   PDF »
Another appraisal of Ortega, the Coles, and science policy: the Ecclesiastes hypothesis.
S. P. Turner and D. E. Chubin (1976)
Social Science Information 15, 657-662
Information and the Ecology of Scholars.
T. R. Blackburn (1973)
Science 181, 1141-1146
   Abstract »    PDF »


To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)