Publishing papers in prestigious journals such as Nature, Science and PNAS is a great feat, like athletes winning Olympics Gold Medals. Under widespread global competition, the law of allocation may prove interesting. In this study, we aimed to understand the distribution mechanism of top journal publishing and collected metadata in Nature, Science and PNAS to discover how successful academic entities distribute. A mathematical formula is used to explain for such distributions in the context of fixed geometric mean and maximum entropy principle. Results show the number of papers published by an academic producer and its rank in the successful community compliance with the power law and the result could enrich Lotka’s law. If the geometric mean of a system such as paper-and-rank distribution is given, then its entropy automatically reaches its maximum value to form the power law and perform a linear distribution. This study finds that power law operates to the top journals’ publication allocation and is the policymakers, scientists and funders in different tiers could choose different strategies to improve their rank in the distribution according to the discoveries.
AguilloIFGranadinoBOrtegaJL, et al. Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2006; 57(10): 1296–1302.
2.
SchmochUSchubertT. Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research?Scientometrics2008; 74(3): 361–377.
3.
ShenSRousseauRWangDB, et al. Editorial delay and its relation to subsequent citations: the journals nature, science and cell. Scientometrics2015; 105(3): 1867–1873.
4.
WangGYGregoryJChengX, et al. Cover stories: an emerging aesthetic of prestige science. Public Underst Sci2017; 26(8): 925–936.
5.
EvangelouETrikalinosTAIoannidisJPA. Unavailability of online supplementary scientific information from articles published in major journals. Faseb J2005; 19(14): 1943–1944.
6.
TurkiHTaiebMAHBen AouichaM, et al. Nature or science: what Google trends says. Scientometrics2020; 124(2): 1367–1385.
7.
ZhaoFZhangYLuJG, et al. Measuring academic influence using heterogeneous author-citation networks. Scientometrics2019; 118(3): 1119–1140.
8.
StephanP. How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.
9.
ThelwallM. Are successful co-authors more important than first authors for publishing academic journal articles?Scientometrics2023; 128: 2211–2232.
10.
LindahlJ. Predicting research excellence at the individual level: the importance of publication rate, top journal publications, and top 10% publications in the case of early career mathematicians. J Informetr2018; 12(2): 518–533.
11.
HonigBLampelJSiegelD, et al. Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: institutional failure or individual fallibility?J Manage Stud2014; 51(1): 118–142.
12.
Alves-SilvaEPortoACFFirminoC, et al. Are the impact factor and other variables related to publishing time in ecology journals?Scientometrics2016; 108(3): 1445–1453.
13.
ThelwallMKoushaKAbdoliM, et al. Why are coauthored academic articles more cited: higher quality or larger audience?J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2023; 74: 791–810.
14.
TriggleCRMacDonaldRTriggleDJ, et al. Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges. Account Res2022; 29(3): 133–164.
15.
BajwaNUKonigCJ. How much is research in the top journals of industrial/organizational psychology dominated by authors from the US?Scientometrics2019; 120(3): 1147–1161.
16.
KretschmerHKretschmerT. Lotka’s distribution and distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies. J Informetr2007; 1(4): 308–337.
17.
CortesLMMora-ValenciaAPeroteJ. The productivity of top researchers: a semi-nonparametric approach. Scientometrics2016; 109(2): 891–915.
18.
SerenkoACoxRAKBontisN, et al. The superstar phenomenon in the knowledge management and intellectual capital academic discipline. J Informetr2011; 5(3): 333–345.
19.
ZhangHQ. More authors, more institutions, and more funding sources: hot papers in biology from 1991 to 1993. J Am Soc Inf Sci1997; 48(7): 662–666.
20.
FangHLChangHM. High-impact papers from China, Japan, India, and Korea. Learn Publ2014; 27(1): 44–46.
21.
HicksDIsettKR. Powerful numbers: exemplary quantitative studies of science that had policy impact. Quant Sci Stud2020; 1(3): 969–982.
22.
BrzezinskiM. Power laws in citation distributions: evidence from Scopus. Scientometrics2015; 103(1): 213–228.
23.
RoshaniSBagherylooiehMRMoslehM, et al. What is the relationship between research funding and citation-based performance? A comparative analysis between critical disciplines. Scientometrics2021; 126(9): 7859–7874.
24.
MoslehMRoshaniSCocciaM. Scientific laws of research funding to support citations and diffusion of knowledge in life science. Scientometrics2022; 127(4): 1931–1951.
25.
CocciaMRoshaniS. General laws of funding for scientific citations: how citations change in funded and unfunded research between basic and applied sciences. J Data Inform Sci2024; 9(4): 71–89.
26.
CocciaMRoshaniS. Research funding and citations in papers of nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and medicine, 2019-2020. J Data Inform Sci2024; 9(2): 56–80.
27.
Ronda-PupoGAKatzJS. The power law relationship between citation impact and multi-authorship patterns in articles in Information Science & Library Science journals. Scientometrics2018; 114(3): 919–932.
28.
Ronda-PupoGAKatzJS. The scaling relationship between citation-based performance and coauthorship patterns in natural sciences. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2017; 68(5): 1257–1265.
29.
Ronda-PupoGAKatzJS. The power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals: a scale-independent approach. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2016; 67(10): 2565–2572.
30.
Ronda-PupoGAKatzJS. The scaling relationship between degree centrality of countries and their citation-based performance on management information systems. Scientometrics2017; 112(3): 1285–1299.
31.
ChenCM. Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J Data Inform Sci2017; 2(2): 1–40.
32.
ShuFJulienCALariviereV. Does the web of science accurately represent Chinese scientific performance?J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2019; 70(10): 1138–1152.
33.
Ferrer-i-CanchoRVitevitchMS. The origins of Zipf’s meaning-frequency law. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2018; 69(11): 1369–1379.
34.
PeiduC. Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?Scientometrics2019; 121(3): 1527–1547.
35.
SongYHWuLJQiuJP. A comparative study of first and all-author bibliographic coupling analysis based on scientometrics. Scientometrics2021; 126(2): 1125–1147.
36.
LyuDQGongKLRuanXM, et al. Does research collaboration influence the ‘disruption’ of articles? Evidence from neurosciences. Scientometrics2021; 126(1): 287–303.
37.
SubbotinAArefS. Brain drain and brain gain in Russia: analyzing international migration of researchers by discipline using Scopus bibliometric data 1996-2020. Scientometrics2021; 126(9): 7875–7900.
38.
ZhaoZYBuYKangLL, et al. An investigation of the relationship between scientists’ mobility to/from China and their research performance. J Informetr2020; 14(2): 11.
39.
YangSLXingXWolframD. Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA. Scientometrics2018; 115(2): 1017–1037.
40.
PoitrasCLariviereV. Research mobility to the United States: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics2023; 128: 2601–2614.
41.
YanEZhuYJHeJG. Analyzing academic mobility of US professors based on ORCID data and the Carnegie classification. Quant Sci Stud2020; 1(4): 1451–1467.
