Author:
Bornmann Lutz,Devarakonda Sitaram,Tekles Alexander,Chacko George
Abstract
AbstractWu et al. (Nature 566:378–382, 2019) introduced a new indicator measuring disruption ($${DI}_{1}$$DI1). Bornmann et al. (Do disruption index indicators measure what they propose to measure? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers, 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08775) compared variants of the disruption index and pointed to $${DI}_{5}$$DI5 as an interesting variant. The calculation of a field-specific version of $${DI}_{5}$$DI5 (focusing on disruptiveness within the same field) for Scientometrics papers in the current study reveals that the variant is possibly able to identify landmark papers in scientometrics. This result is in contrast to the Scientometrics analysis previously published by Bornmann and Tekles (Scientometrics 120(1):331–336, 2019) based on the original disruption index ($${DI}_{1}$$DI1).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,General Social Sciences
Reference27 articles.
1. Babu, A. R., & Singh, Y. P. (1998). Determinants of research productivity. Scientometrics, 43(3), 309–329.
2. Bornmann, L., Devarakonda, S., Tekles, A., & Chacko, G. (2019). Do disruption index indicators measure what they propose to measure? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08775.
3. Bornmann, L., & Tekles, A. (2019). Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 120(1), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03113-z.
4. Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2016). Revolutionary science. mBio, 7(2), e00158. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00158-16.
5. Chiu, W. T., & Ho, Y. S. (2005). Bibliometric analysis of homeopathy research during the period of 1991 to 2003. Scientometrics, 63(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0201-7.
Cited by
33 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献