\subsection*{Direct comparison of m-quotient and riq}
To better illustrate the differences between the two measures
discussed here, in Figure 5, we present a scatterplot
of {\it m} versus {\it riq} for each astronomer in the corpus. The
solid horizontal and vertical lines indicate the global mean for {\it
m} and {\it riq}, respectively. By and large, {\it m} and {\it riq}
are positively correlated, but with a substantial scatter on both
sides of the main correlation trend. Moreover, an anomaly of the
scatter plot is the presence of a collection of points in the upper
left B quadrant: they form a branch which does not follow the
main overall trend. In quadrant B, we identify $1221$ astronomers who have {\it m} above the global mean
($m > 0.855$), but {\it riq} below the global mean ($riq <
0.0977$). In the same way, we isolate astronomers in the lower
right quadrant indicated as ``D'', who have above mean {\it riq } and
below mean {\it m}. Although the scatter in quadrant D
is much less prominent, this group of $1300$ astronomers has {\it m}
below the mean and {\it riq} above the mean. Astronomers in the upper
left (B) and lower right (D) quadrants are interesting to explore more
in detail as they are weighed very differently by the two productivity
measures. Some descriptive statistics about these groups, and the
overall population, are presented in Table 1. 

\begin{table}
\caption{{\bf Table 1.} Descriptive statistics regarding astronomers with {\it m}
  above the mean and {\it riq} below the mean (quadrant B),
  astronomers with {\it riq} above the mean and {\it m} below the mean
  (quadrant D), and the overall population (all quadrants)}
\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
&quadrant \textbf{B}& quadrant \textbf{D}  & \textbf{all} quadrants \\
size & 1,221 & 1,300 & 11,036\\
number of publications & 59.79 & 71.86 & 64.02\\
number of first authored publications & 5.94 & 17.35 & 12.57\\
career start, year & 1,993.1 & 1,977.1 & 1,983.5\\
career length, years & 17.6 & 31.4 & 25.9\\
citations accrued, total & 2,078.5 & 1,666.4 & 1,931.9\\
citations accrued, normalized & 116.8 & 654.4 & 429.8\\
{\it h}-index & 21.73 & 19.78 & 19.12\\
{\it tori} & 1.81 & 19.66 & 9.55\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Table 1
shows that astronomers in quadrant B and D publish differently. In
quadrant D, we find astronomers who publish profusely (well above the global
mean), both in general and as first authors. Astronomers in quadrant B
not only publish below the mean, but also publish only a very small
fraction of them as first authored works (1 in 12, as opposed to 1 in
4 for quadrant B and 1 in 5 for the overall population). Looking at
the careers of astronomers in the two groups, we find that those in
quadrant B tend to be younger scholars with shorter career time spans,
than those in quadrant D. The citations accrued by astronomers in
these two groups also follow different dynamics, with astronomers in
quadrant B receiving a large volume of citations, although citation impact drops
substantially below the mean if accrued citations are
normalized by the number of authors in a paper. Quadrant D follows a
perfectly inverse pattern: fewer overall citations, but more
normalized citations. Finally, a look at the research productivity
indices for the two groups reveals that quadrant B astronomers have on
average higher {\it h} and considerably lower {\it tori} than the
global mean (and vice versa for quadrant D). These effects, especially
those relative to citation and publication, are indicative of the
different archetypes of astronomers that are found in the two
sections: quadrant B scholars are part of highly cited, large
collaborations; quadrant D scholars are part of highly cited, yet
smaller collaboration groups. A detailed examination of the careers
of the individuals who are the most extreme outliers confirms this
analysis.



