🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology(2015)10.1002/asi.23329Source: DataRank Database

Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references is a research paper published in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (2015). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.1. It has been cited 1,488 times.

N/A
1.1DataRank · unranked
1.1
1488 citations · base score 7.3
Cite:
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

Many studies (in information science) have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we reexamine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (a) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (b) analyze the data across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with an advanced statistical technique—segmented regression analysis—which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (a) the number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (b) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid‐1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three essential growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars, and 8 to 9% to 2010.

Data sources & pipeline
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (0/2)
    Interoperable (0/2)
      Reusable (0/3)

        FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

        DataRank Breakdown

        Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

        Base Score Contribution

        1.1

        From this paper's citation signal

        Citation Network Contribution

        0

        Citation network not refreshed for this result

        This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.

        Learn more about DataRank methodology →
        Why this DataRank?

        DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.

        Base score B(p)
        log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
        Network N(p)
        Σ over citers of log1p(Cq) ÷ max(outdegreeq, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
        Damping factor d = 0.85
        DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
        Self-citations excluded
        Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

        Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

        Read the full methodology →

        Authors (2)

        Related Papers (10)

        Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology(2012)
        co-cited
        10.1002/asi.22661
        Nature(2012)
        co-cited
        10.1038/483531a
        Meta-assessment of bias in science
        N/A
        0.895DataRank · unranked
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(2017)
        co-cited
        10.1073/pnas.1618569114
        Reproducibility in Science
        N/A
        1.0DataRank · unranked
        Circulation Research(2015)
        co-cited
        10.1161/circresaha.114.303819
        Scientometrics(2016)
        co-cited
        10.1007/s11192-016-2082-3
        Assessing Value in Biomedical Research
        N/A
        8.5DataRank · unranked
        JAMA(2014)
        co-cited
        10.1001/jama.2014.6932