Identifying "hot papers" and papers with "delayed recognition" in large-scale datasets by using dynamically...

Area of Science:

• Scientometrics
• Bibliometrics
• Research Evaluation

Background:

• "Hot papers" (HPs) gain rapid citations, while "delayed recognition" papers (DRs) experience a later citation surge.
• Understanding these citation patterns is crucial for research evaluation and identifying impactful scientific work.
• Previous studies often relied on raw citation counts, potentially overlooking nuanced impact dynamics.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the distinct characteristics differentiating HPs from DRs.
• To analyze publication venues, author origins, and subject areas associated with HPs and DRs.
• To explore factors influencing the emergence of delayed recognition in scientific literature.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of over 5 million papers published between 1980-1990.
• Identification of HPs (n=323) and DRs (n=315) using dynamically field-normalized impact scores.
• Comparative analysis of journal impact, author country, and subject area distributions for HPs and DRs.

Main Results:

• Certain journals (e.g., Physical Review Letters, PNAS) published significantly more HPs, a pattern not observed for DRs.
• US authors published significantly more HPs compared to DRs, relative to other countries.
• Life sciences (Biochemistry, Immunology, Cell Biology) showed more HPs, while clinical fields (Surgery, Orthopedics) showed more DRs.

Conclusions:

• The emergence of DRs appears to be an unpredictable process, contrasting with the more discernible patterns of HPs.
• Field-normalized impact scores provide a more robust method for identifying HPs and DRs than raw citation counts.
• Differences in publication venues, author demographics, and research fields highlight distinct trajectories of scientific impact.