进一步看巨人：量化科学中的智力谱系
See further upon the giants: Quantifying intellectual lineage in science
摘要：
牛顿站在巨人的肩膀上的智慧提出了一个关键但尚未探索的问题：在一项发现引用的所有先前的著作中，哪一个是它的巨人？在这里，我们开发了一种新颖的，独立于学科的方法来识别任何一篇论文的巨人，使我们能够系统地研究巨人在科学中的作用和特征。我们发现，跨学科，约95%的论文站在巨人的肩膀上，但科学进步的重量却相对较少。通过定义一种新的巨型指数，我们发现，虽然高引用率的论文更有可能成为巨型论文，但对于相同引用率的论文，其巨型指数可以很好地预测论文未来的影响力和获奖概率。巨人往往来自小型和大型团队，要么是高度破坏性的，要么是高度发展性的。那些没有巨人但后来成为巨人的论文往往是对科学具有高度破坏性的本垒打论文。鉴于基于引用的措施在科学中的至关重要性，巨人的发展概念可能会提供一个有用的新维度，在评估科学的影响，超越纯粹的引用计数。
英文摘要：
Newton's centuries-old wisdom of standing on the shoulders of giants raises a crucial yet underexplored question: Out of all the prior works cited by a discovery, which one is its giant? Here, we develop a novel, discipline-independent method to identify the giant for any individual paper, allowing us to systematically examine the role and characteristics of giants in science. We find that across disciplines, about 95% of papers stand on the shoulders of giants, yet the weight of scientific progress rests on relatively few shoulders. Defining a new measure of giant index, we find that, while papers with high citations are more likely to be giants, for papers with the same citations, their giant index sharply predicts a paper's future impact and prize-winning probabilities. Giants tend to originate from both small and large teams, being either highly disruptive or highly developmental. And papers that did not have a giant but later became a giant tend to be home-run papers that are highly disruptive to science. Given the crucial importance of citation-based measures in science, the developed concept of giants may offer a useful new dimension in assessing scientific impact that goes beyond sheer citation counts.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
