The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index

By Peder Olesen Larsen, Markus von Ins. Scientometrics, 2010

921 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The growth rate of scientific publication has been studied from 1907 to 2007 using available data from a number of literature databases, including Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Traditional scientific publishing, that is publication in peer-reviewed journals, is still increasing although there are big differences between fields. There are no indications that the growth rate has decreased in the last 50 years. At the same time publication using new channels, for example conference proceedings, open archives and home pages, is growing fast. The growth rate for SCI up to 2007 is smaller than for comparable databases. This means that SCI was covering a decreasing part of the traditional scientific literature. There are also clear indications that the coverage by SCI is especially low in some of the scientific areas with the highest growth rate, including computer science and engineering sciences. The role of conference proceedings, open access archives and publications published on the net is increasing, especially in scientific fields with high growth rates, but this has only partially been reflected in the databases. The new publication channels challenge the use of the big databases in measurements of scientific productivity or output and of the growth rate of science. Because of the declining coverage and this challenge it is problematic that SCI has been used and is used as the dominant source for science indicators based on publication and citation numbers. The limited data available for social sciences show that the growth rate in SSCI was remarkably low and indicate that the coverage by SSCI was declining over time. National Science Indicators from Thomson Reuters is based solely on SCI, SSCI and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Therefore the declining coverage of the citation databases problematizes the use of this source.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d13eb74d54385c1e1ea70a6ff536c086fa6e7422

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2015, methodology): “An approach that is somewhat similar to the approach of Leydesdorff et al. (2011) is presented by Glänzel (2013).”
The natural selection of bad science (2016, background): “The rate at which new papers are added to the scientific literature has steadily increased in recent decades [28,29].”
Full-Text or Abstract? Examining Topic Coherence Scores Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (2017, background): “There is an ever-growing amount of scientific literature with which scientists must grapple and which threatens to overwhelm their capacity to stay up to date with new research [1].”
The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching (2015, background): “com/journal-citation-reports/), and the volume of published scientific research is growing at an ever-increasing rate [1,2].”
On scientific understanding with artificial intelligence (2022, background): “[70] Peder Larsen and Markus Von Ins, “The rate of”