Highly cited articles in the Information Science and Library Science category in Social Science Citation Index: A bibliometric analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to identify and analyse the characteristics of highly cited articles published in the Information Science and Library Science category in the Social Science Citation Index. Articles that have been cited at least 100 times since publication up to the end of 2012 were analysed. We identified 501 highly cited articles published between 1956 and 2009 in 37 journals. MIS Quarterly published 26% of all analysed highly cited articles. The most productive researcher published 11 articles. Six bibliometric indicators were used to evaluate source institutions and countries. The 13 most productive institutions were all located in the USA and Canada. Harvard University in the USA was the most productive institution, ranked number one in the total number of highly cited articles, while the University of Maryland in the USA had the highest publication performance of first and corresponding author articles. Researchers from the USA contributed 67% of highly cited articles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.135 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.739 | 0.930 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.202 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it