Abstract
Large-scale scientific projects have become a major impetus of scientific advances. But few studies have specifically analyzed how those projects bolster scientific research. We address this question from a scientometrics perspective. By analyzing the bibliographic records of papers relevant to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), we found that the SDSS helped scientists from many countries further develop their own research; investigators initially formed large research groups to tackle key problems, while later papers involved fewer authors; and the number of research topics increased but the diversity of topics remains stable. Furthermore, the entropy analysis method has proven valuable in terms of analyzing patterns of research topics at a macroscopic level.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Including the second author, who is an astronomer, and also a member of the SDSS project.
Even here it was called “distance,” “it is not a true distance between distributions since it is not symmetric and does not satisfy the triangle inequality. Nonetheless, it is often useful to think of relative entropy as a “distance” between distributions.” (Cover and Thomas 1991, p. 18)
The final list is available at http://nevac.ischool.drexel.edu/~james/scientometrics_paper/SDSS_Noun_Phrase_ALL.xls.
References
Abt, H. A. (1981). Some trends in American astronomical publications. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 553, 269–272.
Abt, H. A. (1990). Trends toward internationalization in astronomical literature. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 102, 368–372.
Abt, H. A. (1994). The current burst in astronomical publications. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 106, 1015–1017.
Abt, H. A. (2000). Astronomical publication in the near future. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 112, 1417–1420.
Abt, H. A. (2007). The frequency of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72, 105–115.
Basu, A., & Lewison, G. (2005). Going beyond journal classification for evaluation of research outputs—A case study of global astronomy and astrophysics research. ASLIB Proceedings, 57(3), 232–246.
Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.
Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory (99th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Fernandez, J. A. (1998). The transition from an individual science to a collective one: The case of astronomer. Scientometrics, 42, 61–74.
Garfield, E., Pudovkin, A. I., & Istomin, V. S. (2003). Why do we need algorithmic historiography? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 400–412.
Gray, J., Liu, D. T., Santisteban, M. N., Szalay, A. S., DeWitt, D., & Heber, G. (2005). Scientific data management in the coming decade. Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-10. Redmond, WA. http://research.microsoft.com/~Gray/. Accessed 27 May 2007.
Grupp, H. (1990). The concept of entropy in scientometrics and innovation research. Scientometrics, 18, 219–239.
Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2005). Metaphors and diaphors in science communication. Science Communication, 27(1), 64–99.
Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2006). Measuring the meaning of words in contexts: An automated analysis of controversies about ‘Monarch butterflies’, ‘Frankenfoods’, and ‘stem cells’. Scientometircs, 67(2), 231–285.
Purvis, A., & Hector, A. (2000). Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature, 405, 212–219.
Schilling, G. (2001). The virtual observatory moves closer to reality. Science, 289(5477), 238, July 14.
Schmidt, M., Glaser, J., Havemann, F., & Hewz, M. (2006). A methodological study for measuring the diversity of science. In Proceedings International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh COLLNET Meeting (pp. 129–137), Nancy, France.
Small, H. (2004). Why authors think their papers are highly cited. Scientometrics, 60(3), 305–316.
Swanson, D. R., Smalheiser, N. R., & Torvik, V. I. (2006). Ranking indirect connections in literature-based discovery: The role of medical subject headings. Journal of American Society of Information Science and Technology, 57(11), 1427–1439.
Szalay, A. S. (2001). The national virtual observatory. In F. R. Harnden, F. A. Primini, Jr., & H. E. Payne (Eds.), Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X ASP Conference Series, 238, pp. 3–12.
Szalay, A. S., Kunszt, P., Thakar, A., Gray, J., Slutz, D., & Bruner, R. J. (2000). Designing and mining multi-terabyte astronomy archives: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD, Austin, TX, May 2000.
Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C. D., & Singer, Y. (2003). Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL) (pp. 252–259), Edmonton, Canada, May 2003.
Toutanova, K., & Manning, C. D. (2000). Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy part-of-speech tagger. In Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora (EMNLP/VLC-2000) (pp. 63–70), Hong Kong, China, October 2000.
White, S. D. M. (2007). Fundamentalist physics: Why Dark Energy is bad for astronomy. Reports on Progress in Physics, 70, 883–897.
York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., Anderson, S. F., Annis, J., Bahcall, N. A., et al. (2000). The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical summary. The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1579–1587.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks go to the two reviewers, Helmut Abt and Virginia Trimble, who offered many great suggestions and insights to this study. This study is supported by the NSF under grant # IIS-0612129. Thanks also to Thomson ISI for providing the bibliometric data. Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, J., Vogeley, M.S. & Chen, C. Scientometrics of big science: a case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Scientometrics 86, 1–14 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0318-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0318-1