posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 05:57 PM
I think they should have a study on the fact that there are to many studies about studies...Right?
Chris Matyszczyk reports at Cnet that a new scientific study concludes there are too many scientific studies — scientists simply can't keep track
of all the studies in their field. The paper, titled "Attention Decay in Science," looked at all publications (articles and reviews) written in
English till the end of 2010 within the database of the Thomson Reuters (TR) Web of Science. For each publication they extracted its year of
publication, the subject category of the journal in which it is published and the corresponding citations to that publication. The 'decay' the
researchers investigated is how quickly a piece of research is discarded measured by establishing the initial publication, the peak in its popularity
and, ultimately, its disappearance from citations in subsequent publications.
"Nowadays papers are forgotten more quickly. Attention, measured by the number and lifetime of citations, is the main currency of the scientific
community, and along with other forms of recognition forms the basis for promotions and the reputation of scientists," says the study. "Typically,
the citation rate of a paper increases up to a few years after its publication, reaches a peak and then decreases rapidly. This decay can be described
by an exponential or a power law behavior, as in ultradiffusive processes, with exponential fitting better than power law for the majority of cases
(PDF). The decay is also becoming faster over the years, signaling that nowadays papers are forgotten more quickly." Matyszczyk says,"If publication
has become too easy, there will be more and more of it."