Price proposed that roughly half the literature in a field is produced by about the square root of its authors.
Price's 1963 square-root proposal, offered as a bibliometric regularity. Later empirical testing found the rule does not hold generally, so it is best read as a historical hypothesis rather than a settled finding.
In practice
- Treat as unsupported as a general rule: the square-root relation does not survive testing outside its original setting.
- It is a stronger concentration claim than Pareto's, and the underlying observation that output is highly concentrated is much better supported than the specific square-root form.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation is cumulative advantage: publishing raises the chance of publishing again through reputation, funding and collaborators, which concentrates output on a few names.
- In its favour
- Extreme concentration of output is real across fields, and the rule gives a memorable statement of it.
- Against it
- Later testing finds the square-root form does not hold generally, with the concentration varying by field, period and how authorship is counted.
- Standing
- A historical bibliometric hypothesis; later testing found the square-root rule does not hold generally.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Creativity & Work
- Essay
- What gets in the way of good work