THE GROWTH, UTILITY, AND OBSOLESCENCE OF SCIENTIFIC PERIODICAL LITERATURE

Abstract

Line's recently proposed technique for correcting the ‘apparent’ half‐life to allow for the rate of growth of the literature and Vickery's critical analysis of the proposal are both further analysed. Using the concept of utility and considering the sampling variances involved, the paper shows that Line's technique is both questionable and impractical, and that a further factor—the growth of the number of contributors—needs to be allowed for in Vickery's analysis. A collaborative empirical investigation is proposed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 86 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.