The Geography of Scientific Productivity: Scaling in U.S. Computer Science

Michael Batty; Rui Carvalho

REVIEW

The Geography of Scientific Productivity: Scaling in U.S. Computer Science

Rui Carvalho, Michael Batty

Physics and Society · Submitted 28 Mar 2006 · 38 references

Pith's verdict: A useful early map of U.S. computer science output whose headline exponents hinge on unquantified address-parsing assumptions.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDphysics/0603242 (version 3)

Pith IDL3BVXJ64, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationMichael Batty, Rui Carvalho. "The Geography of Scientific Productivity: Scaling in U.S. Computer Science." arXiv:physics/0603242 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/L3BVXJ64

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Carvalho and Batty look at 379k Citeseer papers with full author addresses, assign U.S. addresses to ZIP codes, and ask two questions: how heavy is the tail of research-centre productivity, and how clustered are the centres in space. The new part is the granularity: 3,393 ZIP-code centres instead of the 408 institutions in Matia et al., plus a two-point correlation function with cartogram controls. The fractional counting scheme is sensible, and the cartogram comparison to R&D and population is a fair way to ask whether the clustering is just a proxy for where money and people are.

The central claims are plausible, but they rest on a parsing step that discards a large, unquantified chunk of the data. Only 52.9% of papers survive the requirement that every author is matched to an address, and the ZIP-code matcher specifically ignores U.S. addresses without ZIP codes. The authors concede they cannot quantify the missing and inaccurate data, but the bias could move both exponents. If, say, large universities are more likely to have complete address fields, the productivity tail gets thinner or fatter depending on which side the omission bites; and because the spatial analysis keeps only centres with fractional count >=2, a handful of missing papers can drop a ZIP below the threshold and alter the point set. The power-law fits are also softer than they look: a visually chosen linear region, a Hill plot, no confidence intervals, no goodness-of-fit test. These are not fatal objections, and the authors are honest about the data problems, but the headline numbers - alpha=1.55 and gamma=1.16 - should be read as preliminary estimates.

Who gains from this? People working on scientific productivity, urban scaling, and the geography of innovation. It is a useful reference for the fine-grained approach, not a settled result. I would send it to a serious referee; the question is real, the method is a reasonable first cut, and the caveats are addressable. A referee should ask for robustness on the parsing - e.g., matching against a sample of validated addresses - and for formal power-law testing. With those, this could be a solid empirical contribution.

Referee report

Major objections (4)

[Sec. II (data parsing) and Sec. III (Discussion)] The analysis retains only the 379,111 (52.9%) unique papers for which Citeseer identifies all authors and addresses, and ZIP-code extraction requires a ZIP code preceded or followed by a U.S. state or 'USA'; the authors state that the address 'Physics Department, Northeastern University, Boston MA USA' fails because it lacks a ZIP code, and in the Discussion they concede 'problems of missing and inaccurate data which we are not able to quantify.' Because missing ZIPs cause U.S. addresses to be treated as non-U.S. in the fractional counting, and because the spatial analysis is restricted to centres with fractional count of two or more, any correlation between missing ZIPs and institution size or location biases both the productivity exponent alpha=1.55 and the spatial exponent gamma=1.16. This is load-bearing for both central claims and is not controlled for; the paper should provide an external validation (e.g., comparing a sample of parsed addresses against a curated institutional directory) or a sensitivity analysis re-estimating alpha and gamma under different assumptions about the missing-address fraction.
[Sec. II.A, Fig. 1(b)] The exponent alpha=1.55 is obtained by a least-squares fit to a 'linear region' chosen by eye, with no statement of the fitted range, no confidence interval, and no goodness-of-fit test. The inset Hill plot is used only qualitatively ('the match between the plateau on the Hill plot and the least squares fit... shows that our estimate of alpha is appropriate'). Because the probability density in Fig. 1(a) is bimodal, the power-law regime is limited and its boundaries strongly affect alpha; a systematic tail-estimation procedure (e.g., a maximum-likelihood power-law fit with a scan over the lower threshold and a goodness-of-fit test, or at least a reported sensitivity of alpha to the chosen range) should be used to establish that alpha=1.55 is robust.
[Sec. II.B] The spatial analysis uses only the 1,046 ZIP codes with total fractional count of two or more, justified by 'clearly identified as active' and computational cost. Since the two-point correlation function is computed on this selected point set, gamma=1.16 and the persistence of the power-law after cartogram transformation could depend on this arbitrary threshold. The authors should report how g(r), gamma, and the cartogram results change for thresholds of, say, 1, 3, 5, and 10 fractional papers.
[Sec. II.B, Fig. 3] The claim that the power-laws 'do not disappear' in cartogram space is not supported by any quantitative fit to the transformed g(r) curves. Figure 3 shows that with the population-by-county cartogram, g(r) approaches the Poisson value g=1 at shorter distances, so the residual clustering may be weak or an artifact of finite-size effects; moreover, no confidence intervals are provided for g(r), and gamma=1.16 is described as observed rather than fitted. The paper should provide fitted exponents with uncertainties for each cartogram transformation and a test against the Poisson null, for example via bootstrap or Monte Carlo envelopes.

Minor objections (4)

[Sec. II.A, Fig. 1(a)] The binning used for the probability density estimate is not described; different bin sizes may shift the locations of the two local maxima and hence the apparent power-law regime.
[Sec. II.B, Eq. (3)] The symbol N is used for the number of points in the two-point correlation estimator, but in Sec. II N denotes the number of papers; please use distinct notation (e.g., n for the number of centres) to avoid confusion.
[References] Reference [25] lists the author as 'Dress'; the correct name is Drees (H. Drees, L. de Haan, and S. Resnick, 'How to make a Hill plot').
[Sec. III] In the first sentence of the Discussion, 'it networks' should read 'its networks'.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

U.S. computer-science output per ZIP code follows a power law; spatial clusters persist even after rescaling by population and R&D.

The reading

This paper uses Citeseer metadata to assign every author of a computer science paper to a U.S. ZIP code and asks how scientific output is distributed over fine-scale geography. It reports that the number of papers per research centre follows a power-law regime across a range of output levels, with cumulative exponent $\alpha = 1.55$, so a small set of ZIP codes produces a disproportionate share of the field. It also treats the locations of research centres as a spatial point process and finds a two-point correlation function decaying as $g(r) \sim r^{-1.16}$, the signature of a fractal distribution. The same scaling survives when the map is redrawn as a cartogram in which area is proportional to population or R&D spending, although at finer normalizations the pattern moves closer to randomness. The authors conclude that physical location cannot be reduced to population or funding density and propose fine-scale geography as a component of future bibliometric indicators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pairing of ZIP-code-level fractional counting with the two-point correlation function of a spatial point process. Fractional counting gives each co-author an equal share $1/\phi$ of a paper, with non-U.S. addresses counted as one share and U.S. addresses split among $m$ ZIP codes, so each ZIP code's output is a well-defined productivity measure. The two-point correlation function $g(r)$, estimated with Ripley's edge correction, measures how much more likely a research centre is to have a neighbour at distance $r$ than a random Poisson process would predict; $g(r) = 1$ means randomness, while power-law decay means self-similar clustering. Cartograms from Gastner and Newman's diffusion method are then applied to rescale the map by R&D and population, providing the control experiment: if the clustering vanished under rescaling, it would be attributable to those demographic variables.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the authors' own terms, is that U.S. computer science productivity is heavy-tailed and spatially scale-invariant in a way that population and R&D density do not explain. Using fractional counting over 128,348 U.S. papers in Citeseer, they estimate the cumulative distribution of paper output per ZIP code as a power law with exponent $\alpha = 1.55$ between the two modes of a bimodal density; the upper tail cannot be resolved because data are scarce. For the 1,046 centres with at least two papers, the two-point correlation function of their geographic positions decays as $g(r) \sim r^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma \simeq 1.16$, indicating clustering at all measured distance scales. After density-equalizing cartogram transforms that control for state-level R&D, state-level population, and county-level population, a power-law decay of $g(r)$ persists, so the observed clustering is not merely an artifact of where people or research money are concentrated.

Load-bearing premise

The power-law and spatial-scaling conclusions rest on the assumption that the 52.9% of Citeseer papers with complete author addresses, and the ZIP codes parsed from them, are representative of all U.S. computer science output, so missing or inaccurate address fields are not correlated with institution size or location.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the fitted exponent $\alpha = 1.55$ is correct, U.S. computer science output is concentrated in a thin tail of ZIP codes, so a small number of institutions dominate the field's production.
Because $g(r)$ decays as a power law out to hundreds of kilometres, research-centre clustering is self-similar: concentration shows up at every distance scale, not just within metropolitan areas.
The persistence of the power-law decay after cartogram normalization by state R&D and state and county population implies that demographic and funding density do not, by themselves, generate the observed geography.
The bimodal productivity distribution, together with the unresolved upper tail, suggests that small and large research centres may be governed by different growth mechanisms, a question the present data cannot settle.
ZIP-code-level fractional counting provides a fine-grained unit for future bibliometric indicators that are sensitive to the internal geography of institutions.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of the parsing assumption would rerun the analysis on a complete address source, such as publisher metadata or a national researcher registry; if the exponents shift materially, the claimed scaling laws are artifacts of missing addresses.
Applying the same ZIP-code methodology to other research disciplines could reveal whether $\alpha = 1.55$ and $\gamma = 1.16$ are universal scaling exponents or field-specific.
The survival of clustering after population normalization suggests a generative process in which new centres form near existing ones; the paper does not test this mechanism, but it is a natural next step.
Repeating the study on current open metadata could test whether preprint culture and remote collaboration have weakened the geographic anchoring of research productivity.

Original abstract

Here we extract the geographical addresses of authors in the Citeseer database of computer science papers. We show that the productivity of research centres in the United States follows a power-law regime, apart from the most productive centres for which we do not have enough data to reach definite conclusions. To investigate the spatial distribution of computer science research centres in the United States, we compute the two-point correlation function of the spatial point process and show that the observed power-laws do not disappear even when we change the physical representation from geographical space to cartogram space. Our work suggests that the effect of physical location poses a challenge to ongoing efforts to develop realistic models of scientific productivity. We propose that the introduction of a fine scale geography may lead to more sophisticated indicators of scientific output.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,247 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.96 · human participants 0.04 · controlled comparison 0.08 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.19 · compares with prior results 0.24 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Here we extract the geographical addresses of authors in the Citeseer database of computer science papers. We show that the productivity of research centres in the United States follows a power-law regime, apart from the most productive centres for which we do not have enough data to reach definite conclusions. To investigate the spatial distribution of computer science research centres in the United States, we compute the two-point correlation function of the spatial point process and show that the observed power-laws do not disappear even when we change the physical representation from geographical space to cartogram space. Our work suggests that the effect of physical location poses a challenge to ongoing efforts to develop realistic models of scientific productivity. We propose that the introduction of a fine scale geography may lead to more sophisticated indicators of scientific output.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Here we extract the geographical addresses of authors in the Citeseer database of computer science papers.	method 0.96	0.94	0.02	asserted 0.96
s1	We show that the productivity of research centres in the United States follows a power-law regime, apart from the most productive centres for which we do not have enough data to reach definite conclusions.	result 1.00	0.96	0.66	asserted 1.00
s2	To investigate the spatial distribution of computer science research centres in the United States, we compute the two-point correlation function of the spatial point process and show that the observed power-laws do not disappear even when we change the physical representation from geographical space to cartogram space.	result 0.69	0.97	0.20	asserted 1.00
s3	Our work suggests that the effect of physical location poses a challenge to ongoing efforts to develop realistic models of scientific productivity.	interpretation 1.00	0.38	0.47	hedged possibility 1.00
s4	We propose that the introduction of a fine scale geography may lead to more sophisticated indicators of scientific output.	future work 1.00	0.17	0.11	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from analysis of existing data 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Probability distribution of paper output (fraction

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: a) Albers’ equal-area projection of the 48 contermin

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Variation of the two-point correlation function wit

Figures reproduced from arXiv:physics/0603242 by the authors.

References

Works cited (38)

[1]

R. M. Shiﬀrin, K. B¨ orner, Mapping knowledge domains, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (suppl. 1) (2004) 5183– 5185

View on Pith 2004
[2]

D. Crane, Invisible Colleges: Diﬀusion of Knowledge in Scientiﬁc Communication, University of Chicago Press, 1972

View on Pith 1972
[3]

M. Batty, The geography of scientiﬁc citation, Environ. Plan. A 35 (2003) 761–765

View on Pith 2003
[4]

K. B¨ orner, S. Penumarthy, M. Meiss, W. Ke, Mapping the diﬀusion of information among major U.S. research institutions, Scientometrics 68 (3) (2006) 415-426

View on Pith 2006
[5]

L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, Introduction to Informetrics: Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and In- formation Science., Elsevier, 1990

View on Pith 1990
[6]

M. E. J. Newman, The structure of scientiﬁc collabora- tion networks, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (2) (2001) 404–409

View on Pith 2001
[7]

M. E. J. Newman, Scientiﬁc collaboration networks: I. network construction and fundamental results, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001) 016131

View on Pith 2001
[8]

M. E. J. Newman, Scientiﬁc collaboration networks: II. shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001) 016132

View on Pith 2001
[9]

A. L. Barab´ asi, H. Jeong, Z. N´ eda, E. Ravasz, A. Schu- bert, T. Vicsek, Evolution of the social network of scien- tiﬁc collaborations, Physica A 311 (2002) 590–614

View on Pith 2002
[10]

V. Plerou, L. A. N. Amaral, P. Gopikrishnan, M. Meyer, H. E. Stanley, Similarities between the growth dynamics of university research and of competitive economic activ- ities, Nature 400 (1999) 433–437

View on Pith 1999
[11]

L. A. N. Amaral, P. Gopikrishnan, K. Matia, V. Plerou, H. E. Stanley, Application of statistical physics methods and concepts to the study of Science and technology sys- tems, Scientometrics 51 (1) (2001) 9–36

View on Pith 2001
[12]

K. Matia, L. A. N. Amaral, M. Luwel, H. F. Moed, H. E. Stanley, Scaling phenomena in the growth dynamics of scientiﬁc output, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56 (9) (2005) 893–902

View on Pith 2005
[13]

Peacock J., Cosmological Physics, Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1999

View on Pith 1999
[14]

L. Glass, W. R. Tobler, Uniform distribution of objects in a homeogeneous ﬁeld: Cities on a plain, Nature 233 (1971) 67–68

View on Pith 1971
[15]

B. D. Ripley, The second-order analysis of stationary point processes, J. Appl. Probab. 13 (2) (1976) 255-266

View on Pith 1976
[16]

B. D. Ripley, Modelling spatial patterns, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B-Stat. Methodol. 39 (2) (1977) 172–212

View on Pith 1977
[17]

S.-H. Yook, H. Jeong, A.-L. Barab´ asi, Modeling the inter- net’s large-scale topology, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (2002) 13382–13386

View on Pith 2002
[18]

S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, D.- U. Hwang, Complex networks: Structure and dynamics, Phys. Rep. 424 (2006) 175–308

View on Pith 2006
[19]

M. T. Gastner, M. E. J. Newman, Diﬀusion-based method for producing density-equalizing maps, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (20) (2004) 7499–7504

View on Pith 2004
[20]

M. T. Gastner, M. E. J. Newman, Optimal design of spatial distribution networks, Phys. Rev. E 74 (2006) 016117

View on Pith 2006
[21]

C. L. Giles, I. G. Councill, Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientiﬁc contributions through automatic ac- knowledgment indexing, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (51) (2004) 17599–17604

View on Pith 2004
[22]

A. A. Goodrum, K. W. McCain, S. Lawrence, C. L. Giles, Scholarly publishing in the internet age: a citation anal- ysis of computer Science literature, Inf. Proc. Manag. 37 (2001) 661–675

View on Pith 2001
[23]

D. A. King, The scientiﬁc impact of nations, Nature 430 (2004) 311–316

View on Pith 2004
[24]

D. de Solla Price, Letter to the editor, Science 212 (1981) 987

View on Pith 1981
[25]

H. Dress, L. d. Haan, S. Resnick, How to make a Hill plot, Ann. Stat. 28 (1) (2000) 254–274

View on Pith 2000
[26]

D. Stoyan, Basic ideas of spatial statistics, in: K. Mec ke, D. Stoyan (Eds.), Statistical physics and spatial statis- tics, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 3–21

View on Pith 2000
[27]

M. Kerscher, I. Szapudi, A. S. Szalay, A comparison of estimators for the two-point correlation function, Astro- phys. J. 535 (2000) L13–L16

View on Pith 2000
[28]

M. Kerscher, Statistical analysis of large-scale stru cture in the universe, in: K. Mecke, D. Stoyan (Eds.), Statis- tical physics and spatial statistics, Springer-Verlag, He i- delberg, 2000, pp. 36–71

View on Pith 2000
[29]

A. H. Robinson, J. L. Morrison, P. C. Muehrcke, A. J. Kimerling, S. C. Guptill, Elements of Cartography, John Wiley and Sons, 1995

View on Pith 1995
[30]

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Re- sources Statistics, National Patterns of Research and De- velopment Resources: 2003 , NSF 05-308, Brandon Shack- elford (Arlington, V A 2005)

View on Pith 2003
[31]

H. F. Moed, M. Luwel, The business of research, Nature 400 (1999) 411–412

View on Pith 1999
[32]

M. A. Zook, The Geography Of the Internet Indus- try: Venture Capital, Dot-Coms, And Local Knowledge, Blackwell, 2005

View on Pith 2005
[33]

M. Dodge, Understanding cyberspace cartographies: A critical analysis of internet network infrastructure maps , Ph.D. thesis, University College London (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[34]

An invisible college is a loose network of researchers w ho ”communicate with each other and transmit information across the whole ﬁeld (...) to monitor the rapidly chang- ing research ’front’.” [2, p35]

View on Pith
[35]

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/oai.html Accessed 22/02/2006

View on Pith 2006
[36]

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/zip1999.htm l

View on Pith
[37]

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/

View on Pith
[38]

http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html

View on Pith

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

R. M. Shiﬀrin, K. B¨ orner, Mapping knowledge domains, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (suppl. 1) (2004) 5183– 5185

View on Pith 2004

[2] [2]

D. Crane, Invisible Colleges: Diﬀusion of Knowledge in Scientiﬁc Communication, University of Chicago Press, 1972

View on Pith 1972

[3] [3]

M. Batty, The geography of scientiﬁc citation, Environ. Plan. A 35 (2003) 761–765

View on Pith 2003

[4] [4]

K. B¨ orner, S. Penumarthy, M. Meiss, W. Ke, Mapping the diﬀusion of information among major U.S. research institutions, Scientometrics 68 (3) (2006) 415-426

View on Pith 2006

[5] [5]

L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, Introduction to Informetrics: Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and In- formation Science., Elsevier, 1990

View on Pith 1990

[6] [6]

M. E. J. Newman, The structure of scientiﬁc collabora- tion networks, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (2) (2001) 404–409

View on Pith 2001

[7] [7]

M. E. J. Newman, Scientiﬁc collaboration networks: I. network construction and fundamental results, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001) 016131

View on Pith 2001

[8] [8]

M. E. J. Newman, Scientiﬁc collaboration networks: II. shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001) 016132

View on Pith 2001

[9] [9]

A. L. Barab´ asi, H. Jeong, Z. N´ eda, E. Ravasz, A. Schu- bert, T. Vicsek, Evolution of the social network of scien- tiﬁc collaborations, Physica A 311 (2002) 590–614

View on Pith 2002

[10] [10]

V. Plerou, L. A. N. Amaral, P. Gopikrishnan, M. Meyer, H. E. Stanley, Similarities between the growth dynamics of university research and of competitive economic activ- ities, Nature 400 (1999) 433–437

View on Pith 1999

[11] [11]

L. A. N. Amaral, P. Gopikrishnan, K. Matia, V. Plerou, H. E. Stanley, Application of statistical physics methods and concepts to the study of Science and technology sys- tems, Scientometrics 51 (1) (2001) 9–36

View on Pith 2001

[12] [12]

K. Matia, L. A. N. Amaral, M. Luwel, H. F. Moed, H. E. Stanley, Scaling phenomena in the growth dynamics of scientiﬁc output, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56 (9) (2005) 893–902

View on Pith 2005

[13] [13]

Peacock J., Cosmological Physics, Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1999

View on Pith 1999

[14] [14]

L. Glass, W. R. Tobler, Uniform distribution of objects in a homeogeneous ﬁeld: Cities on a plain, Nature 233 (1971) 67–68

View on Pith 1971

[15] [15]

B. D. Ripley, The second-order analysis of stationary point processes, J. Appl. Probab. 13 (2) (1976) 255-266

View on Pith 1976

[16] [16]

B. D. Ripley, Modelling spatial patterns, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B-Stat. Methodol. 39 (2) (1977) 172–212

View on Pith 1977

[17] [17]

S.-H. Yook, H. Jeong, A.-L. Barab´ asi, Modeling the inter- net’s large-scale topology, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (2002) 13382–13386

View on Pith 2002

[18] [18]

S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, D.- U. Hwang, Complex networks: Structure and dynamics, Phys. Rep. 424 (2006) 175–308

View on Pith 2006

[19] [19]

M. T. Gastner, M. E. J. Newman, Diﬀusion-based method for producing density-equalizing maps, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (20) (2004) 7499–7504

View on Pith 2004

[20] [20]

M. T. Gastner, M. E. J. Newman, Optimal design of spatial distribution networks, Phys. Rev. E 74 (2006) 016117

View on Pith 2006

[21] [21]

C. L. Giles, I. G. Councill, Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientiﬁc contributions through automatic ac- knowledgment indexing, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (51) (2004) 17599–17604

View on Pith 2004

[22] [22]

A. A. Goodrum, K. W. McCain, S. Lawrence, C. L. Giles, Scholarly publishing in the internet age: a citation anal- ysis of computer Science literature, Inf. Proc. Manag. 37 (2001) 661–675

View on Pith 2001

[23] [23]

D. A. King, The scientiﬁc impact of nations, Nature 430 (2004) 311–316

View on Pith 2004

[24] [24]

D. de Solla Price, Letter to the editor, Science 212 (1981) 987

View on Pith 1981

[25] [25]

H. Dress, L. d. Haan, S. Resnick, How to make a Hill plot, Ann. Stat. 28 (1) (2000) 254–274

View on Pith 2000

[26] [26]

D. Stoyan, Basic ideas of spatial statistics, in: K. Mec ke, D. Stoyan (Eds.), Statistical physics and spatial statis- tics, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 3–21

View on Pith 2000

[27] [27]

M. Kerscher, I. Szapudi, A. S. Szalay, A comparison of estimators for the two-point correlation function, Astro- phys. J. 535 (2000) L13–L16

View on Pith 2000

[28] [28]

M. Kerscher, Statistical analysis of large-scale stru cture in the universe, in: K. Mecke, D. Stoyan (Eds.), Statis- tical physics and spatial statistics, Springer-Verlag, He i- delberg, 2000, pp. 36–71

View on Pith 2000

[29] [29]

A. H. Robinson, J. L. Morrison, P. C. Muehrcke, A. J. Kimerling, S. C. Guptill, Elements of Cartography, John Wiley and Sons, 1995

View on Pith 1995

[30] [30]

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Re- sources Statistics, National Patterns of Research and De- velopment Resources: 2003 , NSF 05-308, Brandon Shack- elford (Arlington, V A 2005)

View on Pith 2003

[31] [31]

H. F. Moed, M. Luwel, The business of research, Nature 400 (1999) 411–412

View on Pith 1999

[32] [32]

M. A. Zook, The Geography Of the Internet Indus- try: Venture Capital, Dot-Coms, And Local Knowledge, Blackwell, 2005

View on Pith 2005

[33] [33]

M. Dodge, Understanding cyberspace cartographies: A critical analysis of internet network infrastructure maps , Ph.D. thesis, University College London (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[34] [34]

An invisible college is a loose network of researchers w ho ”communicate with each other and transmit information across the whole ﬁeld (...) to monitor the rapidly chang- ing research ’front’.” [2, p35]

View on Pith

[35] [35]

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/oai.html Accessed 22/02/2006

View on Pith 2006

[36] [36]

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/zip1999.htm l

View on Pith

[37] [37]

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/

View on Pith

[38] [38]

http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html

View on Pith