Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013857029 = product of:
  0.027714059 = sum of:
    0.027714059 = product of:
      0.055428118 = sum of:
        0.055428118 = weight(_text_:l in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055428118 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045365814 = queryNorm
            0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a recent article, L. Egghe, R. Guns, and R. Rousseau () noted that in a study of some eminent scientists, many of them had a fair proportion of papers which were uncited and found this to be surprising. Here, we use the stochastic publication/citation model of Q.L. Burrell () to show that the result might in fact be expected. This brief communication is in the spirit of Q.L. Burrell (, ), showing that results that might at first sight seem to be surprising can in fact often be explainable in a stochastic framework.