next up previous
Next: About this document Up: 科学研究における研究グループの生産性と質的評価 --- 引用度分析とコミュニティ内評価の相互関係 Previous: 謝辞


E. Garfield, Science, 1955, 122, p. 108.

D. J. de Solla Price, Science, 1955, 149, p. 510.

Y. Fujigaki, Filling the gap between discussion on science and scientist's everday activities: Applying the autopoiesis system theory to scientific knowledge, submitted to Social Science Information.

福江純、黒川竜男、「日本天文学界の系図」、天文 月報、 1994, 87, p. 195.

M. H. MacRoberts and B. R. MacRoberts, Social Studies of Science, 1986, 16, p. 151.

山田圭一、塚原修一(編著)『科学研究のライフ サイクル』、東京大学出版会、1986.

林雄二郎、山田圭一『科学のライフ サイクル』、中央公論社、1975.

K. R. Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959, 『科学的発見の論理』 、恒星社厚生閣、1972.



T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962, 『科学革命の構造』、みすず書房、1971.

P. K. Feyerabend Against Method, 1975, 『方法への挑戦』、新曜社、1981.

B. Latour Science in Action, Harvard University Press 1987.

Productivity of research groups --- relation between citation analysis and reputation within research community

Junichiro Makino, Yuko Fujigaki and Yoshiyuki Imai
Department of General System Studies
College of Arts and Sciences
The University of Tokyo

We analyze the mechanism in which the productivity of a researcher or a research group is determined. For that purpose, we made a quantitative comparison between two research groups in the field of post-world-war theoretical astrophysics in Japan.

Our main conclusion is summarized as follows. The reputation of a research group within the research community (in our case, the community of Japanese astronomers) does not necessarily coincides with the macroscopic indices such as the number of publications or the average citation index. In other words, the two groups showed similar scores for these macroscopic indices. The number of highly-cited papers shows some difference, but not as large as the difference in the reputation. This result indicates that the quantitative measurement of the productivity does not give meaningful measure for the actual contribution of a research group to science.

In order to investigate the difference between two groups, we compared the ``field coverage'' of the two groups. In both groups, the field coverage of a person and his/her productivity (in number of publications) show strong positive correlation. Moreover, there is big difference in the average coverage between two groups. In our particular example, the field coverage of a group is related to the number of new research field pioneered by the group. This implies that the reputation of a group within the research community depends more on the number and the wideness of the new field pioneered by the group.

Jun Makino
Wed Apr 14 12:49:24 JST 1999