
doi: 10.1007/bf02020003
Not all highly cited papers have the same citation life cycle curves, i.e. curves of frequency of citations received vs. time. The citation life of ten randomly selected Citation Classics, five in medicine and five in biochemistry, are studied longitudinally in time and compared with a random sample of ten non-classics of the same cohort. There are pronounced differences in the life cycle curves; two distinct types are suggested. Type A, comprised of both high and low cited papers in both fields, has an early peak of citation rate and may be approximated by a bilinear cumulative citation curve with a break at six years of age, when three quarters of the total number of citations have occurred. Type B, in this study comprised of extremely highly cited methodological Citation Classics, exhibit a constant or slowly accelerating growth rate with a vigorous citation life extending over the entire period studied and typically one third or less of the total citations accumulated at six years of age.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 64 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
