Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Predicting publication productivity for researchers: a piecewise Poisson model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Poisson model forecasts group publication output from paper counts.

desk verdict A simple piecewise Poisson model with a nice empirical motivation, but the validation is undercut by training/test overlap and the distributional fit fails after 2013. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07564 v2 pith:TH7TWKUZ submitted 2019-08-20 cs.DL physics.soc-ph

Zheng Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DLphysics.soc-ph
keywords scientificpublicationproductivitypredictionpiecewisePoissonmodelregressiondistributionbibliometricgroup-levelforecasting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that scientific publishing, though seemingly random for individuals, is predictable at the group level once researchers are divided by their exact prior publication count. For each such group, annual output in the next short interval follows a Poisson distribution, and the group average follows a simple log-linear time trend. A regression on that trend forecasts future output for the vast majority of researchers, and the fitted relationship is significant for the groups covering most of the training population. If the claim is right, funding agencies and academic administrators could evaluate publication productivity with a transparent, unbiased quantitative index rather than bespoke individual-level models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the piecewise Poisson model of Eq. (1): a partition of researchers into subsets indexed by their historical publication count $i$, with each subset's publication rate evolving exponentially in calendar time. This partition removes diversity in publishing experience, the Poisson assumption supplies the count-data likelihood, and the log-linear link turns estimation into ordinary linear regression. Prediction then proceeds by drawing a Poisson count for each interval and accumulating it per researcher, so the same mechanism generates individual trajectories and group averages.

What would settle it

Fit Eq. (3) to observed group means through 2009, compute the 95% confidence band for the extrapolated years 2014-2018, and compare the actually observed annual means for each group $i$; if a substantial share of these later means fall outside the band, the log-linear extrapolation is disconfirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the piecewise Poisson structure of publication counts: for researchers with $i$ publications before time $t_{j-1}$, the number of publications in the interval $(t_{j-1}, t_j]$ follows a Poisson distribution with mean $\lambda_{ij} = \lambda_{i1} e^{\beta_i(t_j - t_1)}$. Taking logs and substituting the observed group productivity $\eta_{ij} = m_{ij}/n_{ij}$ gives the linear regression $\log \eta_{ij} = \alpha_i + \beta_i(t_j - t_1)$, whose fits are significant for $i \le 12$, a range covering 99.5% of the training researchers. The resulting forecasts track observed group means closely, with group-level correlation near 0.98 to 0.99, and reproduce the bulk of the publication-count distribution, though they do not capture the fat upper tail. The paper presents this as evidence that the future of a group of researchers is far from random.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the log of each group's publication rate changes linearly with calendar time, and that the slope fitted on 1995-2009 remains valid through 2018; if the trend changes through funding shocks, career-stage effects, or field growth, every forecast inherits the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers with the same past publication count form a homogeneous population whose one-period future output follows a Poisson distribution.
  • Group publication productivity can be predicted from publication timestamps alone, without author attributes, collaboration networks, or citation data.
  • The Poisson regression parameters provide an unbiased quantitative index that funding agencies could apply to large pools of applications.
  • Individual-level long-range prediction remains out of reach, since autocorrelations of cumulative output are mostly below 0.5; the autoregressive strategies that work for citations and the $h$-index do not transfer to productivity.
  • Forecasts are reliable for the majority of researchers, with 98.76% of the test set covered here, but not for the highly prolific tail.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the slope $\beta_i$ is stable across cohorts, the model could be refit on rolling windows to separate career aging from field-wide growth; systematic slope drift would indicate that a single calendar-time trend is not the whole story.
  • The partition-then-Poisson construction could be tried on other fat-tailed count outcomes, such as patents, grants, or software releases, using historical count as the sole grouping variable.
  • Checking for overdispersion within each $(i,j)$ subset would test whether the Poisson assumption fully absorbs heterogeneity or whether a negative-binomial extension is needed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a piecewise Poisson model for researcher publication productivity. Researchers are partitioned by their cumulative publication count at a fixed time, and within each group the annual publication count is modeled as Poisson with rate lambda_ij = lambda_i1 exp(beta_i (t_j - t1)). The parameters alpha_i = log(lambda_i1) and beta_i are estimated by linear regression on log group-mean counts from the dblp training years 1995-2009, and forecasts are generated by simulating Poisson draws over 2001-2018 (main experiment) or 1996-2013 (Appendix C). Validation consists of group-level and sorted-list correlations of mean cumulative counts and KS tests comparing predicted and observed cumulative publication distributions. The paper also argues against individual-level autoregressive prediction based on autocorrelation coefficients.

Significance. If the model were properly validated, it would provide a simple, interpretable baseline for group-level publication forecasting and an interesting empirical observation that conditioning on past publication count yields approximately Poisson annual counts. The proposed tests are falsifiable, and the use of the large dblp dataset is a strength. However, the current validation design has a training/test temporal overlap, the distributional tests reject the model in out-of-sample years, and Eq. (5) contains an arithmetic error. The central contribution at this stage is the modeling idea, not an established forecasting method.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Table 1, Figs. 5-6 and Appendix C] The evaluation is contaminated by temporal overlap between training and test. The training dataset Set 5 contains all dblp records from 1995 to 2009, while the test researchers in Set 4 are followed from 2001 to 2018 (Set 7). No exclusion of Set 4 researchers from Set 5 is reported, so the 2001-2009 part of the 'prediction' uses the same researchers and the same years that determine alpha_i and beta_i. The same overlap holds in Appendix C, where Set 6 (1996-2013) overlaps the training years 1996-2009. Consequently the early KS p-values in Figs. 6 and 11 are in-sample, and the collapse of p to 0 from 2013 onward in Fig. 6 (and from 2007 onward in Fig. 11) is exactly where the forecast becomes out of sample. The paper therefore does not currently provide a clean out-of-sample test of Eq. (1).
  2. [Section 6, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) defines the lag-l autocorrelation with the same sum in numerator and denominator; as written, r_l is identically 1 for every l. The denominator should be the full-length sum of squared deviations, such as sum_{t=1}^{T} (y_t - ybar)^2. This makes the reported finding that autocorrelations are 'almost smaller than 0.5' unverifiable from the manuscript and weakens the argument that autoregressive predictors are unsuitable for individual publication counts.
  3. [Experiments, Figs. 6 and 11, Abstract] The abstract and conclusions state that the model's effectiveness was testified, but the distributional test in Figs. 6 and 11 rejects the predicted cumulative distribution for all out-of-sample years (p = 0 from 2013 in the main experiment and from 2007 in Appendix C). The remaining support rests on the sorted-correlation index s2, which compares sorted lists and can be high even when individual-level calibration is poor; it is not a sufficient substitute for the distributional test. Please either restrict the effectiveness claim to the training-overlap period or provide a properly out-of-sample distributional validation.
  4. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 draws from Pois(lambda_{h l}) where h is the running cumulative publication count. A test researcher who starts with h <= I1 = 13 can have h exceed I = 40 after simulated publications, but lambda_{h l} is only defined for h <= I. The algorithm does not specify a truncation, censoring, or extrapolation rule for this case, so the simulation step is not fully defined for productive trajectories.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Comparisons with previous results] The text refers to 'Eq. (5)' when discussing the Simonton formula, but the Simonton formula is numbered Eq. (4); please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Figs. 4, 6, 11] Several p-values are reported as exactly 0; these should be reported as p < 0.001 or with the actual numerical value in scientific notation.
  3. [Table 1] The columns of Table 1 (a through f) are described only in the caption; adding explicit column headers or a legend would improve readability.
  4. [Figure 9] The y-axis label 'Average autocorrelation' is ambiguous; clarify that the average is taken across researchers for each lag, not across lags.
  5. [Reproducibility] The manuscript does not state whether the code or the exact data subsets are available; providing these, or at least detailed pseudocode for the simulation and KS testing steps, would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fitted-input validation: the test researchers' 2001–2009 output lies inside the 1995–2009 training set, so the early 'predictions' are in-sample fits; the paper's own KS p-values collapse once the forecast becomes truly out of sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 (Experiments), Table 1 and Figs. 5–6; Appendix C, Figs. 10–11]
    "The training dataset consists of the researchers in Set 5 and their historical publication quantity from Set 1, Its parameters are I = 40, J = 23, L = 14, T0 = 1951, T1 = t0 = 1995, tL = 2009, and T2 = tJ = 2018. The test dataset consists of the researchers in Set 4, their historical publication quantity from Set 2, and their annual publication quantity from Set 7. Its parameters are tX = 2000, and tY = 2018."

    Set 5 spans 1995–2009 and contains all dblp researchers active in that window; the Set 4 test researchers published in 2000, so they are part of Set 5. Thus their 2001–2009 annual outputs are included in n_ij and m_ij, and hence in eta_ij = m_ij/n_ij, the response variable regressed in Eq. (3) to obtain alpha_i and beta_i. Predicting those same years is therefore an in-sample fit, not an out-of-sample forecast. The paper's own Fig. 6 shows KS p-values > 0.05 through 2012 and p = 0 from 2013–2018; Appendix C (Fig. 11) shows p = 0 from 2008 onward after an overlap through 2009. The reported validation of Eq. (1) over the forecast horizon is thus partly a restatement of fitted rates.

full rationale

The paper's conditional-Poisson partition claim is an empirical finding supported by KS tests on the training data, not a consequence of Eq. (1); Eq. (1) is an explicit log-linear modeling assumption, and the paper's self-citations are background or empirical rather than load-bearing uniqueness imports. The reduction-by-construction found here is the training/test overlap: because the training data are all of dblp 1995–2009 and the test researchers published in 2000, the test researchers' own 2001–2009 publications contribute to the eta_ij values used to fit alpha_i and beta_i. Consequently, the reported 'predictions' for 2001–2009 (and 1996–2009 in Appendix C) are in-sample fitted values, and the figures show the distributional match persists mainly through that overlap and then fails. This makes the headline predictive validation partially circular, although the underlying piecewise-Poisson idea retains independent testable content if a genuinely non-overlapping forecast were evaluated.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's core prediction depends on two fitted parameters per historical-count group, α_i and β_i, plus a capacity cutoff I1. The Poisson and log-linear assumptions are empirical idealizations supported only approximately by the reported KS tests, and the extrapolation of the fitted time trend carries the entire forecast.

free parameters (3)
  • Group intercept alpha_i = log(lambda_i1) = Fitted by linear regression for each i; individual values not listed
    Intercept in Eq. (3), estimated from Set 5 training data; one per historical-count group.
  • Group time slope beta_i = Fitted by linear regression for each i; individual values not listed
    Slope in Eq. (3) controlling the exponential time trend; one per historical-count group.
  • Model capacity cutoff I1 = 13 in main experiment
    Researchers with more than I1=13 publications at [T0,tX] are excluded from prediction; chosen because regression becomes insignificant for larger i (Fig. 4) and to keep enough sample sizes.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Annual publication counts within each historical-count group form a Poisson distribution with a single rate
    Established only approximately by KS tests in Fig. 2; several p-values fall below 0.05, so it is an idealization that the model's likelihood and sampling rely on.
  • domain assumption The log group publication rate is linear in calendar time (Eq. 1)
    This functional form is assumed, not derived; it converts the model into a Poisson regression.
  • domain assumption The fitted time trend extrapolates unchanged to the prediction window
    The model forecasts 2010-2018 using slopes fit to 1995-2009 with no structural break or regime-change test.
  • domain assumption dblp's cleaned author identities correspond to distinct researchers
    The paper relies on dblp name disambiguation and ORCID corrections; merging errors would inflate counts and break the Poisson grouping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting publication productivity for researchers: a piecewise Poisson model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TH7TWKUZ

@misc{pith2026190807564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting publication productivity for researchers: a piecewise Poisson model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TH7TWKUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07564}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting the scientific productivity of researchers is a basic task for academic administrators and funding agencies. This study provided a model for the publication dynamics of researchers, inspired by the distribution feature of researchers' publications in quantity. It is a piecewise Poisson model, analyzing and predicting the publication productivity of researchers by regression. The principle of the model is built on the explanation for the distribution feature as a result of an inhomogeneous Poisson process that can be approximated as a piecewise Poisson process. The model's principle was validated by the high quality dblp dataset, and its effectiveness was testified in predicting the publication productivity for majority of researchers and the evolutionary trend of their publication productivity. Tests to confirm or disconfirm the model are also proposed. The model has the advantage of providing results in an unbiased way; thus is useful for funding agencies that evaluate a vast number of applications with a quantitative index on publications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07564 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The quantitative distribution of researchers’ publications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Eliminating the diversity in historical publication quantity induces Poisson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of the piecewise Poisson model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relationship between publication productivity and time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fittings on the evolutionary trend of researchers’ publication quantity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fittings on the quantitative distribution of researchers’ publications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The publication productivity predicted by the formula in Eq. (5). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The average annual publication quantity of test researchers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Autocorrelation coefficients of the series on cumulative publication quantity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fittings on the evolutionary trend of researchers’ publication quantity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fittings on the quantitative distribution of researchers’ publications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Science, 354(6312), aaf5239

    Sinatra R, Wang D, Deville P, Song C, Barab´ asi AL (2016) Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312), aaf5239

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102, 16569-16572

    Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102, 16569-16572

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Scientometrics, 70, 201-205

    Schubert A (2007) Successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 70, 201-205

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Science 149(3683): 510-515

    Price DJS (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149(3683): 510-515

    work page 1965

  5. [5]

    J Am Soc Inf Sci, 27(5): 292-306

    Price DJS (1976) A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage process. J Am Soc Inf Sci, 27(5): 292-306. 17

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    Science, 286(5439): 509- 512

    Barab´ asi AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439): 509- 512

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    J R Soc Interface, 11: 20140378

    Perc M (2014) The Matthew effect in empirical data. J R Soc Interface, 11: 20140378

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Nature, 489(7415), 201

    Acuna DE, Allesina S, Kording KP (2012) Future impact: Predicting scientific success. Nature, 489(7415), 201

    work page 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Europhys Lett, 105(2), 28002

    Newman MEJ (2014) Prediction of highly cited papers. Europhys Lett, 105(2), 28002

    2014

  2. [10]

    Scientometrics 112: 483-507

    Xie Z, Xie ZL, Li M, Li JP, Yi DY (2017) Modeling the coevolution between citations and coau- thorship of scientific papers. Scientometrics 112: 483-507

    2017

  3. [11]

    Lehman HC (2017) Age and achievement (Vol. 4970). Princeton University Press

    2017

  4. [12]

    Transinformacao 26: 229-238

    Gl¨ anzel W (2014) Analysis of co-authorship patterns at the individual level. Transinformacao 26: 229-238

    2014

  5. [13]

    J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 69(2): 305-317

    Xie Z, Ouyang ZZ, Li JP, Dong EM, Yi DY (2018) Modelling transition phenomena of scientific coauthorship networks. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 69(2): 305-317

    2018

  6. [14]

    Dev Rev, 4(1), 77-111

    Simonton DK (1984) Creative productivity and age: A mathematical model based on a two-step cognitive process. Dev Rev, 4(1), 77-111

    1984

  7. [15]

    EPJ Data Science 7: 5

    Xie Z, Li M, Li JP, Duan XJ, Ouyang ZZ (2018) Feature analysis of multidisciplinary scientific collaboration patterns based on pnas. EPJ Data Science 7: 5

    2018

  8. [16]

    J Informetr 10: 299-311

    Xie Z, Ouyang ZZ, Li JP (2016) A geometric graph model for coauthorship networks. J Informetr 10: 299-311

    2016

  9. [17]

    Dong Y, Johnson RA, Chawla NV (2016) Can scientific impact be predicted? IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 2(1), 18-30

    2016

  10. [18]

    Scientometrics, 96(2), 467-483

    Mccarty C, Jawitz JW, Hopkins A, Goldman A (2013) Predicting author h-index using character- istics of the co-author network. Scientometrics, 96(2), 467-483

    2013

  11. [19]

    Plos One, 7(11), 1-5

    Mazloumian A (2012) Predicting researchers’ scientific impact. Plos One, 7(11), 1-5. 18

    2012

  12. [20]

    Science, 342(6154), 127-132

    Wang D, Song C, Barab´ asi AL (2013) Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127-132

    2013

  13. [21]

    J Informetr, 10(2), 471-484

    Cao X, Chen Y, Liu KR (2016) A data analytic approach to quantifying scientific impact. J Informetr, 10(2), 471-484

    2016

  14. [22]

    Appl Intell, 44(2), 252-268

    Pobiedina N, Ichise R (2016) Citation count prediction as a link prediction problem. Appl Intell, 44(2), 252-268

    2016

  15. [23]

    J Informetr, 13(2), 485-499

    Abrishami A, Aliakbary S (2019) Predicting citation counts based on deep neural network learning techniques. J Informetr, 13(2), 485-499

    2019

  16. [24]

    J Informetr, 13(1), 32-49

    Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Felici G (2019) Predicting publication long-term impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor. J Informetr, 13(1), 32-49

    2019

  17. [25]

    Plos One, 9(11), e112520

    Stern DI (2014) High-ranked social science journal articles can be identified from early citation information. Plos One, 9(11), e112520

    2014

  18. [26]

    Scientometrics, 115(3), 1395-1412

    Kosteas VD (2018) Predicting long-run citation counts for articles in top economics journals. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1395-1412

    2018

  19. [27]

    Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L, Wang J (2014) How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date? J Informetr, 8(1), 175-180

    2014

  20. [28]

    Bai XM, Zhang LI, Lee I (2019) Predicting the citations of scholarly paper, J Informetr, 13, 407-418

    2019

  21. [29]

    EPJ Data Science, 3(1), 9

    Sarig¨ ol E, Pfitzner R, Scholtes I, Garas A, Schweitzer F (2014) Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks. EPJ Data Science, 3(1), 9

    2014

  22. [30]

    Scientometrics, 101(2), 1233-1252

    Yu T, Yu G, Li PY, Wang L (2014) Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1233-1252

    2014

  23. [31]

    Scientometrics, 107(3), 1265-1282

    Klimek P, Jovanovic AS, Egloff R, Schneider R (2016) Successful fish go with the flow: citation impact prediction based on centrality measures for term-document networks. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1265-1282

    2016

  24. [32]

    Phys Rev E 64(2): 025102

    Newman M (2001) Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Phys Rev E 64(2): 025102. 19

    2001

  25. [33]

    Physica A 385(2): 750-764

    Tomassini M, Luthi L (2007) Empirical analysis of the evolution of a scientific collaboration net- work. Physica A 385(2): 750-764

    2007

  26. [34]

    BioScience, 63(10), 817-823

    Laurance WF, Useche DC, Laurance SG, Bradshaw CJ (2013) Predicting publication success for biologists. BioScience, 63(10), 817-823

    2013

  27. [35]

    Milojevi´ c S(2013) Accuracy of simple, initials-based methods for author name disambiguation, J Informetr 7 767-773

    2013

  28. [36]

    Physica A, 527, 121140

    Xie Z (2019) A Bayesian model on the merging errors of coauthorship data. Physica A, 527, 121140

    2019

  29. [37]

    Xie Z (2019) A cooperative game model for the multimodality of coauthorship networks, Sciento- metrics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03183-z

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Technometrics 15(4): 791-799

    Consul PC, Jain GC (1973) A generalization of the Poisson distribution. Technometrics 15(4): 791-799

    1973

  31. [39]

    J R Stat Soc Ser A-G, 135(3), 370-384

    Nelder JA, Wedderburn RW (1972) Generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G, 135(3), 370-384

    1972

  32. [40]

    Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1973) Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Wiley

    1973

  33. [41]

    John Wiley & Sons

    Box GE, Jenkins GM, Reinsel GC, Ljung GM (2015) Time series analysis: forecasting and control. John Wiley & Sons

    2015

  34. [42]

    J Roy Stat Soc B Met, 34(2), 187-202

    Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables. J Roy Stat Soc B Met, 34(2), 187-202

    1972

  35. [43]

    J Gerontol, 9(4), 465-467

    Dennis W (1954) Predicting scientific productivity in later maturity from records of earlier decades. J Gerontol, 9(4), 465-467

    1954

  36. [44]

    Soc Stud Sci 35: 673-702

    Lee S, Bozeman B (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci 35: 673-702

    2005

  37. [45]

    Ductor L (2015) Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford B Econ Stat, 77(3), 385-407

    2015

  38. [46]

    Scientometrics, 111(3), 1839-1850

    Qi M, Zeng A, Li M, Fan Y, Di Z (2017) Standing on the shoulders of giants: the effect of outstanding scientists on young collaborators’ careers. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1839-1850. 20 Appendix A: The Poisson model The Poisson model is a generalized linear model of regression an...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.