Comments on: Malthus and the Most Cited Economist in the World http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/05/09/malthus-and-the-most-cited-economist-in-the-world/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:11:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Organizations and Markets » Malthus and the “dismal science” http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/05/09/malthus-and-the-most-cited-economist-in-the-world/#comment-76 Mon, 15 May 2006 18:58:41 +0000 https://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/05/09/malthus-and-the-most-cited-economist-in-the-world/#comment-76 [...] I too imagine that Williamson's critics will be delighted by the association with Malthus. [...]

]]> By: Bo Nielsen http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/05/09/malthus-and-the-most-cited-economist-in-the-world/#comment-58 Thu, 11 May 2006 00:20:18 +0000 https://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/05/09/malthus-and-the-most-cited-economist-in-the-world/#comment-58 Very good point! Natural science seems to be concerned with advancing the field whereas social science (at times) seems more concerned with advancing existing ideas (read: the careers of one self and others). This raises an interesting question: To what extent are citation counts reliable as measures of impact/importance of work?

On a related note: Oliver´s topic seems truly “innovative and new”…

I greatly respect scholars like Karl Wiik and others who usually include a minimal number of references – and for the most time to themselves! At least this signals originality in the work!

]]> By: Jung-Chin Shen http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/05/09/malthus-and-the-most-cited-economist-in-the-world/#comment-49 Tue, 09 May 2006 17:09:36 +0000 https://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/05/09/malthus-and-the-most-cited-economist-in-the-world/#comment-49 For curiosity, I googled the four authors you mentioned by Google Scholar. Professor Hodgson is right at least by this measure: Williamson by far got more citations than Coase, Arrow, and Keynes. I remember that Williamson once said (proudly) in his article that Markets and Hierarchies is the second most-often-cited book in the world, only next to The Wealth of Nations, and more than Capital. But this is not correct by Google Scholar measure. I did not check ISI. However, I am curious how many citations are simply ritual citations—one work is cited for legitimacy and academic habits rather than for inspiration and other meanings. I noticed that there is a difference between social science and natural science citation—in natural science, you tend to cite the most recent work that is closely related to your paper. But in social science, you like to cite the original or the representative work. The two types of citations signal different messages to their colleagues, and probably reflect how scholars construct their world.

]]>