↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Random Drift versus Selection in Academic Vocabulary: An Evolutionary Analysis of Published Keywords

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Random Drift versus Selection in Academic Vocabulary: An Evolutionary Analysis of Published Keywords
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0003057
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Alexander Bentley

Abstract

The evolution of vocabulary in academic publishing is characterized via keyword frequencies recorded in the ISI Web of Science citations database. In four distinct case-studies, evolutionary analysis of keyword frequency change through time is compared to a model of random copying used as the null hypothesis, such that selection may be identified against it. The case studies from the physical sciences indicate greater selection in keyword choice than in the social sciences. Similar evolutionary analyses can be applied to a wide range of phenomena; wherever the popularity of multiple items through time has been recorded, as with web searches, or sales of popular music and books, for example.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 7%
United Kingdom 5 7%
Brazil 3 4%
Spain 2 3%
France 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 52 74%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 23%
Professor 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 4 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 20%
Social Sciences 12 17%
Psychology 8 11%
Computer Science 8 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 7 10%