Citation Averages, 2000-2010, by fields and years Source: Thomson Reuters' Essential Science Indicators database, 1 January 2000-31 December 2010 Years 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 All years All fields 19.92 18.91 17.76 16.08 14.56 12.35 9.82 7.64 4.87 2.39 0.41 10.81 Molecular biology 49.10 46.34 42.79 37.83 33.71 27.86 22.34 16.94 11.10 5.81 0.90 25.62 Immunology 38.21 36.57 33.47 30.32 28.27 23.77 18.99 15.01 9.88 5.18 0.74 21.81 Neuroscience 36.06 34.92 31.50 27.58 24.89 21.27 16.97 12.72 8.09 4.04 0.57 19.47 Biochemistry 31.78 29.64 27.36 24.84 21.97 18.12 14.21 10.98 7.22 3.62 0.52 17.25 Microbiology 29.74 27.99 25.74 23.58 21.44 18.91 14.28 10.59 6.84 3.29 0.50 15.79 Space science 21.51 23.80 19.22 20.65 18.21 16.73 13.82 12.07 7.31 5.10 1.10 14.30 Clinical medicine 23.19 22.28 21.31 19.77 17.97 15.51 12.29 9.42 5.80 2.80 0.55 12.93 Pharmacology 21.64 21.41 20.92 18.26 17.57 14.13 12.42 9.21 6.02 2.67 0.36 12.20 Environment/ecology 22.98 20.53 19.44 17.76 15.82 13.15 10.45 8.09 4.93 2.33 0.35 11.35 Psychiatry/psychology 21.84 21.11 18.94 18.08 15.84 12.89 10.21 7.33 4.42 1.88 0.34 11.26 Chemistry 18.94 17.62 17.61 16.07 14.88 13.09 10.57 8.35 5.79 2.98 0.44 11.19 Geosciences 18.64 17.88 15.62 14.47 12.82 10.79 9.21 6.24 4.07 2.00 0.43 9.70 Physics 15.48 14.32 13.23 12.20 11.52 10.00 8.18 5.77 3.80 1.94 0.39 8.97 Plant/animal science 14.72 13.85 12.99 11.74 10.65 8.70 6.92 5.18 3.27 1.51 0.26 7.74 Agricultural sciences 14.28 13.25 12.53 11.78 10.62 8.75 7.19 5.24 2.99 1.32 0.19 7.05 Materials science 12.04 11.58 10.73 10.72 9.57 8.26 6.95 5.55 3.78 1.90 0.28 7.03 Economics/business 12.56 11.50 11.72 10.39 9.25 7.43 5.58 4.03 2.22 0.97 0.20 6.22 Engineering 8.22 8.11 7.57 7.04 6.69 5.63 4.54 3.80 2.41 1.20 0.16 4.76 Social sciences, other 9.25 8.63 8.37 7.67 7.21 6.19 4.82 3.49 2.02 0.88 0.20 4.67 Computer science 7.17 7.66 7.93 5.35 3.99 3.51 2.51 3.26 2.13 0.98 0.15 3.75 Mathematics 6.76 6.05 5.99 5.39 4.80 4.19 3.36 2.51 1.67 0.86 0.14 3.48 In neuroscience, microbiology and so on, one cites a lot it seems. Does this mean excessive time is spent just reading other people's research? I'm an aspiring scientist, and I want to spend as much time possible solving my own research, and not just making preparations for solving my own by reading other's works. I find that way the best to become a successful scientist. I also would like to avoid to the largest degree possible, teaching and paperwork and other mundane stuff. Anyone know how I can go about to avoid such things? Mathematics and comp sci would be the best for me, if I'm interpreting the meaning of the data correctly. Also, doesn't comp sci, mathematics and theoretical phys have way more interesting and intensive stuff than chem, bio sciences and geo sciences? The math in the three later fields seem easy, just basic undergrad level petty much. Also, is econ worth considering? Again it seems like the math and challenge is lacking. Can a field even be called challenging if the math's simple? People say econ requires some other skill like psychology, but is this actually hard? And psychology - isn't that crowded due to the sheer easiness of the field, attracting tons of low level people? And then there's philosophy. Seems like a useless, dead field to me. The only still thriving is philosophy of language. Linguistics is different as it doesn't depend as much as on math as other fields, but still has its own rigourous system. But can a field really be impressive if like Noam C. are highly regarded in it? Even with the increasing rigour in linguistics, isn't it too young and simple compared to fields like phys and mathematics? Nother thing I would like to know more about is job prospects. I hear dubious sayings about physics full, none becoming research mathematicians, CS is full of unexplored possibilities - any shred truth to such claims? How the job prospects in those other fields, econ, linguistics, geo science, bio sciences. Any type of info you can give on this, whether its statistics, degree of co-op required with other scientists, chance of ending up mediocre or horror stories - fill me in. The field I got the worst impression of is medical science. I've heard competition is though with its standout plagiarism and it's almost law-of-the-jungle (In a deceptive way of course). Thanks in advance.
Hi Ken, I have a hard time understanding the statistics that you have given. I can only guess that it is the number of citations given per year. Its certainly not true that papers are using less citations per year, in fact the opposite seems to be the case. I agree that most papers use too many citations. However, some papers are meant to have as many citations as possible, termed 'review papers'. These are an overview of a certain field and so their authors have to be as knowledgeable as possible. In biosciences especially (I'm majoring in microbiology so I have some idea), it is hard to prove anything all by yourself. You will almost always rely on the work of others for most facts. This is because biological systems are very complex and very hard to study, and very unintuitive. So, each scientist takes up a certain piece of the puzzle so that the whole may be understood. The cool thing about biosciences is that is a very active field. As you can see from your statistics, immunology is more likely to cite recent papers than math. There is a lot to study. This means that the field is more malleable and more responsive to new trends in research. The figure is hard to interpret, but it seems the most 'youthful field' is space science. I'm not even sure I know what 'space science' is, but it sounds pretty cool ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As a biology major, I can tell you it is mostly hands off for undergraduate students. Except for the few lab courses, its just book learning. I am taking a programming class right now and I can tell you that its infinitely more satisfying as I am learning very fast (at first) and I can immediately apply it and write a useful program. I mean, I have research ideas in my major, but it is quite specific and requires specialized equipment and strains, and a lot of money. On the other hand, almost everything in computer science can be done on your very own PC. However, with bioscience you can do some amazing things, things that affect basic reality. You can cure diseases, save lives. You can try to develop drugs that improve peoples memory and learning. You can study the ecology of migrating salmon (using very high tech equipment). You can become a vet, or a researcher, or a geneticist, an ecologist, or get a job in the food industry. The cool thing is that there is a whole planet for a biologist to study - life is everywhere. After biology you will almost certainly be working as an academic, in the biomedical/pharmaceutical field, or in agriculture/food industry. Hope this gives you some ideas.
Thanks for the reply. If you want an easier to read version of the statistics, google "Citation Averages, 2000-2010, by fields and years". Should be the first hit. I can't post links yet so yeah. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyways, you have or anyone else have more to add, just keep 'em coming! I'm an information sponge right now and I'll suck up any type of information. What you said about how you study and how you compared it to programming was quite interesting, for example. Any info which have even a small chance of being interesting is appreciated.
If you want to go into engineering I would advise sticking to nuclear or renewable energy, it has alot of prospects, as does desalination. I chose the biomedical crossroad, and while it is competitive, it is also a blank slate and a lot can still be done, as many are scared away by the design complexities.
Wait, how can you publish a paper without citations? Maybe I'm misunderstanding those statistics. Surely it's about the average number of times a paper published in those years has been cited? Chemistry is pretty good for a career. The work of the pharmaceutical industry never ceases (relatively competitive and you need to be good at organic synthesis though). If you get near the end of the degree and realise maybe a research career isn't for you, there are plenty of technical jobs looking for chemistry degrees. As for paperwork etc, sorry, you'll have to deal with it, and citations are important for understanding the state of the field. A lot of research is expanding further on someone else's work. obligatory once-every-few months sciforums post
Indeed, it is how many times a published paper has been cited in that periode. However, I take this to mean that on average, one is less citation dependent in math as compared to microbio. Had we had a 1900-2010 statistic instead, the picture may have been quite different, but on the other hand, what else do I have to go on? I need as much information as possible to create an overall impression of each science. Only then will I be completely sure in where I belong. At the very least we can assume that in math there's no need to constantly keep up with new things. More flexibility overall.
Math degrees...erm, my wife has a bachelor's in Math. And has never fricking used it...bloody useless to her. If you want that Math degree to be useful, you either have to teach with it or plan on probably getting a PhD. Which will be really hard. Math programs seem to be designed to create former, burnt-out grad students. But then, I guess you won't get to do your own research without a PhD... Look...the thing is, you need to do what you find to be the most fun. Because what you find enjoyable is what you will do best at. So you're going to just have to try multiple things and not try to be scientific about it...because "fun" and "enjoyable" are gestalt experiences. If you're worried about job openings-a good practical thing to worry about-immunology would probably be one good one. There's a giant puzzle: why are allergies skyrocketing? Microbiology's a good one too. That one's going to be a *fun* one soon when the current antibiotics stop working. How about research neuropsychiatry? I think that's going to be the cutting edge of the psych field...we're only just now figuring out how the brain does what it does and how to fix it when it's having problems...
Chemical engineering is not particularly glamorous but it's a hot career too. Even if we stop using fossil fuels for energy, we'll continue inventing new kinds of plastic and convenience food. It's been pointed out that the 19th was the Century of Chemistry and the 20th was the Century of Physics. The 21st seems poised to be the Century of Biology. Bachelor's degrees are a dime a dozen. These days half the people who get them read at what my generation called the sixth-grade level, they can't write anything longer than 140 characters, and they'd be lost without emoticons. And let's not talk about their business and financial skills, these are the folks who invented the subprime morgage! If you want to be identified as an educated person in any field, you need a PhD. Indeed. I had been told since I was six years old that I was going to be a scientist or a mathematician. It wasn't until I was in my third year at Caltech and couldn't stand to do the homework because it seemed pointless, that I realized I was living somebody else's dream and not my own. Unfortunately it was way too late at that point to change direction and become a professional linguist or musician, but I transferred into business, which was interesting enough (and accounting is just butt-simple once you've studied differential equations). Of course I was lucky enough to graduate in 1967 when third-generation computers were rebuilding the business world and they were recruting people with degrees in absolutely anything to program them. And who would have guessed that I'd end up being a writer? The point is, keep your options open, and look for what interests you, not necessarily what other people expect from you. Whatever you want to do, there probably are jobs in that field and if you're one of the best people in it you'll get one of them. One point of view says it's because children are shielded from the pathogens of the past, so their immune systems never have a chance to be calibrated, learning to distinguish the deadly from the harmful from the merely annoying. This is why they run amok when a new kind of pollen gets into your body: "Omigod, it's a vicious deadly chemical that doesn't match any of the twelve molecules we're accustomed to seeing in this antiseptically clean environment." They've never had to deal with the molecules our ancestors breathed every day. Which will happen very soon if they don't stop overdosing our food animals with them, accelerating the development of antibiotic-resistance.
Industrial heating and cooling is the field . As population grows the need for food stabilization grows and to tell you the truth right now the few companies that do this work can hardly keep up with demand . I just heard China is ramping up production. Can't go wrong with necessities in our shrinking economies . Road workers is another good job if you are thinking career . Mary my Professional friend I play music with said her Flag Girl friend makes a shit pot more money than her. She didn't think it right after all her schooling , but hey such is life . There are winners and there are losers . I believe in anything science though . Coupled with a good grant writer
Scientist is a rather strange term to use, the field of all science is so varied you should pick something that interests you and research it. You shouldn't go in with the "I want to be a scientist" thought, instead think about something you find interesting and go from there. If you want to be a real scientist (researching things in academia all day) you get a phd and do whatever you want. I'm a third year engineer so I'm bias towards them, but any engineering field is full of possibilities (Except maybe civil, we don't like them too much here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). I would stay away from 'soft' sciences like philosophy, social sciences and the like. But any field will be very math heavy, everything. I'm going into pharmaceutical, since everyone always needs drugs and the research possibilities are endless. Also chemical engineers are the highest paid engineers right out of college! Find a topic you like, chemistry and physics seem to be the two broadest, and go from there. Don't get caught up in statistics, just pick something you're interested in. Unless it's statistics of course.
Which bachelor degree allows one to reach the highest level of abstraction? I want challenge, and lots of it. When it comes to research, what sciences would be more "clean" and orderly? Economics is an example of an unnorderly science. People can't seem to agree on anything there, not on how to conduct research, how to interpret findings, etc etc. Thus I also ask, which sciences are the least clean and orderly? Also, which sciences have the most political bickering? By that I mean nepotism, faking research/plagiarism, people following the herd on certain theories, people fearing to come up with alternate theories due to potential backlash from others, etc.
I'd consider sticking to more of the engineering side of things if teaching and paperwork are not your strong suits. Pure science is all about research, and scientists really do have to publish or die. Engineers, on the other hand, actually build stuff. Not as much pure research, but more opportunities to apply the science you've learned. Definitely. As we evolve faster computers, newer networking schemes, better communications links etc possibilities open up in the software that drives those schemes.
I chose the biomedical crossroad, and while it is competitive, it is also a blank slate and a lot can still be done, as many are scared away by the design complexities. This field is ver vast.
I'll ask a question along the same line as the one about abstractness: What field of science would overall be the most complex, and which ten (If you can list that many) subfield in math, physics and CS would be the most complex in this day and age? If any of this is looking to or has historically changed fast, then I would be happy if you could include a bit about that in your post as well. If you can provide list of the most complex subfields in sciences other than CS, physics and math then that would be good as well. Even better if you can compare different subfields, even across wholly different fields. I'm also interested in which field have a solid amount of both complexity and abstractness, and which have little of neither. How are things looking to change in the future, will any fields overtake others while other are left in the dust? Historical facts and views are also interesting for perspective. Another question along those very same lines: Which sciences are more affected by epistemological problems. Economics seems like one, and I have a hard time taking it seriously. Seems like a bandwagon for predator capitalists to justify their moral wrongdoings. =/ I've heard neuroscience as well. Thoughts? And yet another one of those questions. Which sciences are cutthroat? As stated in an earlier post, I got the impression that life sciences overall are much worse with plagiarism and backstabbing. Now for another question, a more specific one. Experimental or theoretical physics? I've read that a generation of string theorists are retiring, without any of their theories ever having been tested by experimentalists. Seems pretty horrible, and that's a definite notch-down for me. On the other hand, what type of problems can an experimentalist hope to solve? Don't they just run experiments and tinker with machines to test the theories of theorists? Second question, considering string theorists are retiring without testing their stuff, does that make for a huge red flag for high energy and other very abstract elitist physics stuff? Sounds like it would be better to do more manageable-scale problems so that whatever theories one comes up with (I assume the research in question is a theorist here) can actually be confirmed right or wrong within a realistic timeframe. Really, what kept those string theorists who are now retiring going for so many years anyways? Are they so dead sure of their own intuitions that they can just keep working, even when their theories may be totally wrong? It just sounds bad really. With all this made up junk, even though yeah sure making patterns and theories up can be fun as way of intellectual wanking, one still can't really know if one is actually reaching new levels of insight or not. It feels bad, knowing I might be just deluding my self. You may tell me to just keep to my fantasies exclusively - but no. I think happiness comes from both the material and mental realm. Also, of course, the fact that made-up useless **** won't be useful or sustainable in the long run, not a problem if you can keep the scam going for long enough to retire, but that risk's not worth it imo. Also, does any other science field have scandals of such scale as the one I listed above?
