THE GROWTH, UTILITY, AND OBSOLESCENCE OF SCIENTIFIC PERIODICAL LITERATURE

Abstract

Line's recently proposed technique for correcting the ‘apparent’ half‐life to allow for the rate of growth of the literature and Vickery's critical analysis of the proposal are both further analysed. Using the concept of utility and considering the sampling variances involved, the paper shows that Line's technique is both questionable and impractical, and that a further factor—the growth of the number of contributors—needs to be allowed for in Vickery's analysis. A collaborative empirical investigation is proposed.