IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v13y2019i1p434-448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Origin, characteristics, predominance and conceptual networks of eponyms in the bibliometric literature

Author

Listed:
  • Valderrama-Zurian, J.C.
  • Melero-Fuentes, D.
  • Aleixandre-Benavent, R.

Abstract

Eponyms are very common in some scientific fields, and they are a fundamental part of the language and historical culture of researchers, as many people have given their names to procedures, laws, formulas, tests, hypotheses, diseases and numerous processes. Despite being etymologically empty terms, some of these names are so deeply rooted that it would be very difficult to do without them. In this paper, 2313 eponyms are analysed from 16,787 bibliometric documents indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection database. A total of 187 eponyms were identified, most of which belong to the areas of information science, statistics and economics. The most frequent eponyms were Hirsch (325), Lotka (214), Bradford (186), Price (146), Egghe (76), Garfield (74) and Zipf (59). Among the most frequent eponyms, the most contemporary, Hirsch and Egghe, were referenced in the same year they were incorporated into the scientific literature. All conceptual networks have the term bibliometrics as their core, except the Hirsch network, in which the term h-index is more central. Currently, the debate continues in the scientific literature, with arguments for and against the use of eponyms.

Suggested Citation

  • Valderrama-Zurian, J.C. & Melero-Fuentes, D. & Aleixandre-Benavent, R., 2019. "Origin, characteristics, predominance and conceptual networks of eponyms in the bibliometric literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 434-448.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:434-448
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157718302906
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine W. McCain, 2011. "Eponymy and Obliteration by Incorporation: The case of the “Nash Equilibrium”," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1412-1424, July.
    2. Michal Jasienski, 2009. "Garfield’s demon and “surprising” or “unexpected” results in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(2), pages 347-353, February.
    3. Peter Vinkler, 2018. "Structure of the scientific research and science policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 737-756, February.
    4. Guillaume Cabanac, 2014. "Extracting and quantifying eponyms in full-text articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1631-1645, March.
    5. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    6. Katherine W. McCain, 2011. "Eponymy and Obliteration by Incorporation: The case of the “Nash Equilibrium”," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1412-1424, July.
    7. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Martin Wieland, 2011. "Galton 2011 revisited: a bibliometric journey in the footprints of a universal genius," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 627-652, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zeba, Gordana & Dabić, Marina & Čičak, Mirjana & Daim, Tugrul & Yalcin, Haydar, 2021. "Technology mining: Artificial intelligence in manufacturing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. András Schubert & Wolfgang Glänzel & Gábor Schubert, 2022. "Eponyms in science: famed or framed?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1199-1207, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    2. András Schubert & Wolfgang Glänzel & Gábor Schubert, 2022. "Eponyms in science: famed or framed?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1199-1207, March.
    3. Wang, Guoyan & Hu, Guangyuan & Li, Chuanfeng & Tang, Li, 2018. "Long live the scientists: Tracking the scientific fame of great minds in physics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1089-1098.
    4. Mike Thelwall, 2019. "The influence of highly cited papers on field normalised indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 519-537, February.
    5. Aurora González-Teruel & Francisca Abad-García, 2018. "The influence of Elfreda Chatman’s theories: a citation context analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1793-1819, December.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Pardeep Sud, 2021. "Do new research issues attract more citations? A comparison between 25 Scopus subject categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(3), pages 269-279, March.
    7. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    8. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    9. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    10. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    11. Alexander Kalgin & Olga Kalgina & Anna Lebedeva, 2019. "Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    12. Gregorio González-Alcaide, 2021. "Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6837-6870, August.
    13. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    14. Joost Kosten, 2016. "A classification of the use of research indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 457-464, July.
    15. Daniela De Filippo & Fernanda Morillo & Borja González-Albo, 2023. "Measuring the Impact and Influence of Scientific Activity in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, June.
    16. Lin Hu & Qinghai Chen & Tingting Yang & Chuanjian Yi & Jing Chen, 2024. "Visualization and Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Seafood Cold Chain Logistics Based on CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and RStudio Bibliometrix," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, July.
    17. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    18. Peter Sjögårde & Fereshteh Didegah, 2022. "The association between topic growth and citation impact of research publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1903-1921, April.
    19. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    20. Eliseo Reategui & Alause Pires & Michel Carniato & Sergio Roberto Kieling Franco, 2020. "Evaluation of Brazilian research output in education: confronting international and national contexts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 427-444, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:434-448. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.