ArticlePloS one2013
Phylomemetic patterns in science evolution--the rise and fall of scientific fields.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Perennial Staple Crops Literature Using Topic Modeling and Bibliometric Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Circular RNA: Current Status and Future Directions.Molecular biotechnology · 2024Review
- Estimating the size of fields in biomedical sciences.mSystems · 2024Article
- Toward an observatory of the evolution of clinical trials through phylomemy reconstruction: the COVID-19 vaccines example.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Quantifying the rise and fall of scientific fields.PloS one · 2022Article
- Draw me Science: Multi-level and multi-scale reconstruction of knowledge dynamics with phylomemies.Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Where is your field going? A machine learning approach to study the relative motion of the domains of physics.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?The American economic review · 2019Article
- A theory and methodology to quantify knowledge.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- Categorical and Geographical Separation in Science.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Using text analysis to quantify the similarity and evolution of scientific disciplines.Royal Society open science · 2018Article
- Knowledge evolution in physics research: An analysis of bibliographic coupling networks.PloS one · 2017Article
- Classifying patents based on their semantic content.PloS one · 2017Article
- Impact of lexical and sentiment factors on the popularity of scientific papers.Royal Society open science · 2016Article
- Lexical shifts, substantive changes, and continuity in State of the Union discourse, 1790-2014.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015Article
- Article
- The Matthew effect in empirical data.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce an automated method for the bottom-up reconstruction of the cognitive evolution of science, based on big-data issued from digital libraries, and modeled as lineage relationships between scientific fields. We refer to these dynamic structures as phylomemetic networks or phylomemies, by analogy with biological evolution; and we show that they exhibit strong regularities, with clearly identifiable phylomemetic patterns. Some structural properties of the scientific fields - in particular their density -, which are defined independently of the phylomemy reconstruction, are clearly correlated with their status and their fate in the phylomemy (like their age or their short term survival). Within the framework of a quantitative epistemology, this approach raises the question of predictibility for science evolution, and sketches a prototypical life cycle of the scientific fields: an increase of their cohesion after their emergence, the renewal of their conceptual background through branching or merging events, before decaying when their density is getting too low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.