Non-indexed eponymical citedness. V. An explanatory and evaluative summary

Abstract

In the fifth study of his publication series concerning the literature phenomenon marked in the main title, the author gives an overview of the investigation as a whole and summarizes its more important statements. This summary is not a mere formality and does not reiterate the outcome of the regearch described previously. It interprets and evaluates the research itself and its main results, further it defines the nature of the investigated literature phenomenon and describes its substance. For this purpose new, hitherto unpublished numerical findings are also submitted. The paper, outlining a short phenomenotogy, exposes the origins and development of this literature phenomenon which stems from the common consent of the scientific community and is conventionally being agreed upon. This phenomenology can be considered as an integrated interpretation of the disclosed nature of the non-indexed eponymical citedness. The investigation, carried out in respect of two leading physical journals and in two different periods of science history, revealed and proved that the non-indexed eponymical citedness is an increasingly important, general and permanent factor within the literature of physics in our century. It also proved that because of this conventional phenomenon of special literature the producers of really important and long lasting scientific achievements - and not only a "handful" of scientists declared by J. R. Colé and S. Colé, but continuously many hundreds of prominent earlier researchers - although textually referred, do not obtain indexed citations of their outstanding scientific achievements. The data indicate that the number of the non-indexed eponymical citations in the case of the majority of these eponymous authors not only equals, but exceeds the number of indexed citations of contemporary, prominent researchers. The disclosure of the nature of this phenomenon also provided the insight that the publicizing researchers' subjective-autonomous freedom in referring practice, stated earlier by the author in the case of indexed-formal citations, exists in the case of non-indexed eponymical citations as well. As a consequence, not only the stock of indexed-formal citations placed in the "scientific shop-window" by the publicizing researcher, but also the stock of hidden, non-indexed eponymical citations are of subjective nature. In consequence of the phenomenon of non-indexed eponymical citedness the Citatlon Indexes do not provide reliable information about the group of scientists who contribute with their work to the ad-vancement of science in our days. The data concerning citedness and produced by these indexes do neither signalize numerically this factual and by the publicizing researchers both actuaily and textually acknowledged contribution, nor quantify the personal measure of it. Citation Indexes registering the formal references only disregard just the impact of the most prominent scientists and their long-lasting and really important achievements manifesting themselves textually up to our days. The data of citedness in these indexes emphasize the ephemeral and present impact on the advancement of science, not reflecting the reality properly at the cost of the truly important and long-lasting achievements. Accordingly, in the disciplines, concerned with science, today's commonly accepted sense, validity and value of data of Citation Indexes and of "citation analyses" based upon them should be modified, i.e. restricted and reduced; especially if and investigation uslng the citation data of the indexes aims at the evaluation of scientists as scientists or at other similar, non-bibliographic topics.