Abstract
The object of this paper is two-fold: first, to show that contrary to what seem to have become a widely accepted view among historians of biology, the famous 1953 first Nature paper of Watson and Crick on the structure of DNA was widely cited – as compared to the average paper of the time – on a continuous basis from the very year of its publication and over the period 1953–1970 and that the citations came from a wide array of scientific journals. A systematic analysis of the bibliometric data thus shows that Watson’s and Crick’s paper did in fact have immediate and long term impact if we define “impact” in terms of comparative citations with other papers of the time. In this precise sense it did not fall into “relative oblivion” in the scientific community. The second aim of this paper is to show, using the case of the reception of the Watson–Crick and Jacob–Monod papers as concrete examples, how large scale bibliometric data can be used in a sophisticated manner to provide information about the dynamic of the scientific field as a whole instead of limiting the analysis to a few major actors and generalizing the result to the whole community without further ado.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmed, T, Johnson, B, Oppenheim, C, Peck, C. 2004. ‹Highly Cited Old Papers and the Reasons Why They Continue to be Cited. Part II. The 1953 Watson and Crick Article on the Structure of the DNA.’ Scientometrics 61: 147–156.
Borgatti, SP. 2002. NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard:Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, SP, Everett, MG, Freeman, LC. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard:Analytic Technologies.
Bourdieu, P. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Crane, Diana. 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion and Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
de Chadarevian, S. 2002. Designs for Life: Molecular Biology After World War II. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
de Chadarevian, S. 2006. ‹Mice and the Reactor: The ‹Genetics Experiments’ in the 1950s Britain.’ Journal of the History of Biology 39: 707–735.
Deichmann, Ute. 2004. ‹Early Responses to Avery’s et al. Paper on DNA AS Hereditary Material.’ Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 34(Part 2): 207–232.
Elkin, Lynne Osman. 2003. ‹Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix.’ Physics Today 56(3): 42–48.
Freeman, L.C. 1978/1979. “Centrality in Social Networks. Conceptual Clarification,” Social Networks 1: 215–239.
Garfield, E. 1979. Citation Indexing its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and humanities. New York:Wiley, pp. 81–97.
Garfield, E, Pudovkin, AI, Istomin, VI. 2003. ‹Mapping the Output of Topical Searches in the Web of Knowledge and the Case of Watson-Crick.’ Information Technology and Libraries 22(4): 183–187.
Gingras, Y. 2007. “Mapping the Changing Centrality of Physicists (1900–1944).” Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI). Madrid, Spain, pp. 314–320.
Gingras, Y. 2008. ‹The Collective Construction of Scientific Memory: The Einstein-Poincaré Connection and its Discontents, 1905–2005.’ History of Science 46: 75–114.
Gmür, M. 2003. ‹Co-Citation Analysis and the Search for Invisible Colleges: A Methodological Evaluation.’ Scientometrics 57: 27–57.
LaFollette, Marcel C. 1990. Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science, 1910–1955. Chicago:Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Larivière, Vincent, Archambault, E, Gingras, Y. 2008. ‹Long-Term Variations in the Aging of Scientific Literature: From Exponential Growth to Steady-State Science (1900–2004).’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59: 288–296.
Lawrence, Peter A. 2007. ‹The Mismeasurement of Science.’ Current Biology 17: R584–R585.
Line, MB. 1993. ‹Changes in the Use of Literature with Time: Obsolescence Revisited.’ Library Trends 41: 665–683.
Maddox, Brenda. 2002. Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA. London:Harper Collins.
McCain, Katherine W. 2008. ‹Assessing An Author’s Influence Using Time Series Historiographic Mapping: The Oeuvre of Conrad Hal Waddington (1905–1975).’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(4): 510–525.
Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure, Enlarged edition. New York:Free Press.
Nelkin, Dorothy. 1994. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York:Freeman.
Olby, Robert. 2003. ‹Quiet Debut for the Double Helix.’ Nature 421: 402–405.
Small, HG. 1977. ‹Co-Citation Model of a Scientific Speciality—Longitudinal Study Of Collagen Research.’ Social Studies of Science 7: 139–166.
Small, H. 1978. ‹Cited Documents as Concept Symbols.’ Social Studies of Science 8: 327–340.
Snyder, H, Bonzi, S. 1998. ‹Patterns of Self-Citation Across Disciplines (1980–1989).’ Journal of Information Science 24(6): 431–435.
Strasser, Bruno J. 2003. ‹Who Cares About the Double Helix.’ Nature 422: 803–804.
Van Raan, AFJ. 2004. ‹Sleeping Beauties in Science.’ Scientometrics 59(3): 461–466.
Wallace, Matthew L, Gingras, Y, Duhon, R. 2009. ‹A New Approach for Detecting Scientific Specialties from Raw Co-Citation Networks.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(2): 240–246.
Wasserman, S, Faust, K. 1994. Social Networks Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Winstanley, Monica. 1976. ‹Assimilation into the Literature of a Critical Advance in Molecular Biology.’ Social Studies of Science 6: 545–549.
Witkowski, Jan A. 1990. ‹“The Most-Cited Articles in the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology”, in Eugene Garfield.’ Essays of an Information Scientist 13: 255–265.
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least-Effort. New York:Addison-Wesley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gingras, Y. Revisiting the “Quiet Debut” of the Double Helix: A Bibliometric and Methodological note on the “Impact” of Scientific Publications. J Hist Biol 43, 159–181 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-009-9183-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-009-9183-2