Little scientometrics,big scientometrics ... and beyond

Although the field of scientometrics/bibliometrics is rapidly growing, and the interest in scientometric indicators is constantly rising, the field is in a crisis: subfields are drifting apart, the field is lacking consensus in basic questions and of internal communication, the quality of scientometric research is questioned by other disciplines. Among the causes stated are: the loss of integrating personalities; shift from basic and methodological research to applied bibliometrics; domination of the interests of science policy and business in commissioning and funding research; vendor policies and failing quality-management on the side of database-producers; misuse of bibliometric research results and disregard for scientific standards. To overcome the situation, the authors plead for integrative and interdisciplinary research approaches, for reinforcing fundamental, methodological and experimental research programs in scientometrics, for independent funding of research, and for an enhancement of scientometric databases. The need for acknowledged technical and scientific standards in research and publication is stressed. Finally, the establishment of aCode of Ethics for the field of scientometrics is proposed.This paper has been presented at the Fourth International Conference on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Scinetometrics in Berlin, Sept. 1993.     

Is It Possible to Measure Science? V. V. Nalimov's Research in Scientometrics

This article is devoted to the scientometric research of Professor V.V. Nalimov (1910–1997) of Moscow State University. His first scientometric article was published in 1959: mathematical models of world science growth were examined and logical grounds for the applicability of these models were also given. In his further works, V.V. Nalimov continued to stress the importance of quantitative studies of science development. In 1969, the monograph on scientometrics by V. V. Nalimov and his co-author Z. M. Mulchenko was published. This book reflected his earlier publications on scientometrics and the solutions of new tasks. In 1970, Nalimov published articles on the comparison of science and the biosphere, the geographic distribution of scientific information, and changes in the demand of scientific staff. In later articles in philosophy of science, he stressed the necessity of a combination of the scientometric approach with works on the logic of science development. One of the latest works by Nalimov was an analysis of articles published by The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology: Here the scientometric approach was used to study the origin and development of a new scientific branch. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Qualitative conditions of scientometrics: The new challenges

While scientometrics is now an established field, there are challenges. A closer look at how scientometricians aggregate building blocks into artfully made products, and point-represent these (e.g. as the map of field X) allows one to overcome the dependence on judgements of scientists for validation, and replace or complement these with intrinsic validation, based on quality checks of the several steps. Such quality checks require qualitative analysis of the domains being studied. Qualitative analysis is also necessary when noninstitutionalized domains and/or domains which do not emphasize texts are to be studied. A further challenge is to reflect on the effects of scientometrics on the development of science; indicators could lead to ‘induced’ aggregation. The availability of scientometric tools and insights might allow scientists and science to become more reflexive.     

Scientometrics in the Context of Probabilistic Philosophy

Although the word “naukometriya” (first translated as sciencemetrics) was coined by V. V. Nalimov (1910–1997) in 1969, this field was not his main concern. In the work of this multifaceted and intriguing scientist and scholar, scientometrics was only of central concern for a short period of time. Nevertheless, it is no coincidence that Nalimov is regarded as one of the founding fathers of scientometrics. In this article, we discuss the development of Nalimov's style of scientometric research within the context of his distinctive approach to the sciences, social sciences and humanities in their entirety: his probabilistic philosophy of science and the world. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Inometric methods and measures for sharing knowledge over internet

This paper deals with knowledge sharing over Internet. After defining the concept, we will discuss work aimed at creating a technical system to implement it and at measuring the quality of results obtained. However, the reader will quickly see that the text is organized to address the theme of this special issue of Scientometrics. Models, methods and measures characterize scientometric research. What problems arise in attempting to develop them for Internet? In order to answer this question, it is important to distinguish between two schools of practice in the scientometric research field: the first derives from applied statistics and is called bibliometrics; the second derives from cognitive sociology and is called infometrics (Turner, 1994).

     

The sources used by bibliometrics-scientometrics as reflected in references

The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which the field of bibliometrics and scientometrics makes use of sources outside the field. The research was carried out by examining the references of articles published in Scientometrics in the course of two calendar years, 1990, 2000. The results show that in 2000, 56.9% (and 47.3% in 1990) of the references originated from three fields: scientometrics and bibliometrics; library and information science; and the sociology, history and philosophy of science. When comparing the two periods, there is also a considerable increase in journal self-citation (i.e., references to the journal Scientometrics) and in the percentage of references to journals. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Mapping the structure and evolution of chemistry research

How does our collective scholarly knowledge grow over time? What major areas of science exist and how are they interlinked? Which areas are major knowledge producers; which ones are consumers? Computational scientometrics — the application of bibliometric/scientometric methods to large-scale scholarly datasets — and the communication of results via maps of science might help us answer these questions. This paper represents the results of a prototype study that aims to map the structure and evolution of chemistry research over a 30 year time frame. Information from the combined Science (SCIE) and Social Science (SSCI) Citations Indexes from 2002 was used to generate a disciplinary map of 7,227 journals and 671 journal clusters. Clusters relevant to study the structure and evolution of chemistry were identified using JCR categories and were further clustered into 14 disciplines. The changing scientific composition of these 14 disciplines and their knowledge exchange via citation linkages was computed. Major changes on the dominance, influence, and role of Chemistry, Biology, Biochemistry, and Bioengineering over these 30 years are discussed. The paper concludes with suggestions for future work.     

The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies

This issue ofScientometrics originated from a Workshop of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST). In this introduction the relations between qualitative theory and the use of scientometric methods is placed in the historical perspective of the emergence of science and technology studies over the last decades. The differences among various theories in terms of dimensions, units of analysis and levels of aggregation are elaborated. Thereafter, the various contributions to the issue are discussed within this framework.     

Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons

This study attempts to analyse the relationship between the peer-review activity of scholars registered in Publons and their research performance as reflected in Google Scholar. Using a scientometric approach, this work explores correlations between peer-review measures and bibliometric indicators. In addition, decision trees are used to explore which researchers (according to discipline, academic status and gender) make most of the reviews and which of them accept most of the papers, assuming that these are reasonable proxies for reviewing quality. Results show that there is a weak correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer-review activity. The decision tree analysis suggests that established male academics made the most reviews, while young female scholars are the most demanding reviewers. These results could help editors to select good reviewers as well as opening a new source of data for scientometrics analyses.     

Citation cycles and peer review cycles

Hardly anyoee will dispute that the creation of theScience Citation Index has made an important difference to science. It is less clear, however, in what way the science system has been influenced. This article proposes a qualitative model to better understand the mutual interactions involved. Science is pictured as an information processing cycle. Its quality is maintained in the “peer review cycle”. The main upshot of theSCI has been the creation of a second-order cycle on top of the primary knowledge production cycle. This is the citation cycle. The specialty of scientometrics has a key role in this citation cycle. The model enables a more profound understanding of the various feed back processes between the two cycles. Moreover, it may give insight in the development of hybrid and heterogenous scientific specialties like scientometrics.     

Models and orphans; concentration of the plant molecular life science research agenda

This article explores the concentration in the global plant molecular life science research output. In the past 15 years, especially the share of articles which refer to the model organism A. thaliana has increased rapidly. Citation analyses show an even greater rise in the importance of this organism. Attempts are discussed to come to a scientometric definition of model organisms. For this purpose a comparison is made with applied microbiology. However, few shared scientometric characteristics were found which could help characterise model organisms. A distinction between major economic organisms and model organisms will therefore continue to rely on qualitative data.     

Scientometric investigations in the USSR

The following is a review of scientometric investigations in the USSR. Scientometrics has been taken in the rigorous sense of the term, defined as an approach of the science of science which attempts to measure sciencereproducibly. The state of scientometric research in the Soviet Union is compared to that of other countries.     

Reflection of co-authorship networks in the Web: Web hyperlinks versus Web visibility rates

About ten years ago a new research field called “webometrics” emerged. Similarities between methods used in webometrics and scientometrics or informetrics are evident from the literature. Are there also similarities between scientometric and Web indicators of collaboration for possible use in technology policy making? Usually, the bibliometric method used to study collaboration is the investigation of co-authorships.In this paper, Web hyperlinks and Web visibility indicators are examined to establish their usefulness as indicators of collaboration and to explore whether similarities exist between Web-based structures and bibliographic structures.Three empirical studies of collaboration between institutions and individual scientists show that hyperlink structures at the Web don’t reflect collaboration structures collected by bibliographic data. However Web visibility indicators of collaboration are different from hyperlinks and can be successfully used as Web indicators of collaboration.     

Scientometric Studies and Their Role in Research Policy of Two Research Councils in the Netherlands

In the past 30 years various scientometric analyses have provided input data for research policy objectives of research institutions in the Netherlands. In this article we discuss several pioneering studies performed on behalf of the research councils for physics (FOM) and technical sciences (STW), which have played an important role in the early development of scientometrics in this country. The motives for these studies, the results and the influence on research policy are discussed. Relations to present themes in scientometric investigations are drawn.     

Composite scientometric indicators for evaluating publications of research institutes

Summary Both quantitative and qualitative evaluation of publications of research teams or institutes requires several scientometric indicators. In this paper a new composite indicator is introduced for the assessment of publications of research institutes working in different fields of science. The composite indicator consists of three part-indicators (Journal Paper Productivity, Relative Publication Strategy and Relative Paper Citedness). The different methods of calculating the composite index have only a slight effect on the value, whereas application of diverse weights for the individual part-indicators results in significant changes.     

Mapping the dynamics of telephone switching devices

In this contribution relations between scientific articles, conference proceedings and patents relating to telephone switching are analyzed. The state-of-the-art in scientometrics and science and technology studies leads one to expect relations among these documents. Empirical findings show the opposite. To interpret these findings I focus on two key issues in scientometrics, namely the frequency of linkages among documents and the nature of communication. The resulting conclusion is that scientometrics should be informed by theories concerning the evolutionary dynamics of science and technology.     

Scientometrics: State-of-the-art

In this presentation we argue that the core research activities of scientometries fall in four interrelated areas: science and technology indicators, information systems on science and technology, the interaction between science and technology, and cognitive as well as socioorganisational structures in science and technology. We emphasize that an essential condition for the healthy development of the field is a careful balance between application and basic work, in which the applied side is the driving force. In other words: scientometrics is primarily a field of applied science. This means that the interaction users' is at least as important as the interaction with colleague-scientists. We state that this situation is very stimulating, it strengthens methodology and it activates basic work. We consider idea of scientometrics lacking theoretical content or being otherwise in a 'crisis-like' situation groundless. Scientometrics is in a typical developmental stage in which the creativity of its individual researchers and the ‘climate’ and facilities of their institutional environments determine the Progress in the field and, particularly, its relation with other disciplines. These aspects also contribute substantially to the reputation of scientometrics as a research field respected by the broader scientific community. And this latter point is important, both to let quantitative studies of science and technology take more advantage of an academic environment, as well as to keep it innovative and thus attractive in terms of applications at the longer term.     

Is fundamentalism a threat to science? Evidence from scientometrics

This article aims to provide scientometric evidence in order to confirm or refute the statement that the “rise in literalist religious thinking in the 1990s devastated science in the Islamic world by promoting the idea that all knowledge could be found in the Koran” published in a Special Report in the New Scientist and to map the literature related to fundamentalism over time and space during the last ten years. We find that despite the rise of fundamentalism, science was thriving in eight Islamic countries (Iran, Jordan, Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia, Morocco, and Pakistan) during the period and hence the statement is refuted. The mapping of the “fundamentalist” literature indicates that there are a constant number of articles per year (60 to 70) covering disciplines ranging from religion and sociology to political sciences and international relations. The center of research is revealed to be the Anglo-Saxon world with epicenter the USA. Finally, we identify that the debate of fundamentalism versus science is in an embryonic stage.     

International publication patterns in social sciences: A quantitative analysis of theIBSS file

A scientometric analysis of social science literature is tried by using the machine-readable files of theIBSS 1981–1985. This is a comprehensive international bibliography in social sciences including cultural anthropology, economics, political science and sociology. Data used were 40,313 monograph records in theIBSS files. First, the number of scholarly monographs was examined by country. As a result, it is shown that a large number of monographs was published by only a very small number of countries. Second, the number of monographs was examined by language. A similar pattern as that of countries was observed. Third, the relationship between the publishing country and the language used is discussed. It is clarified that some languages, such as English, French and Spanish, are used in many countries because of their historical background such as colonization. Finally, we examined the correlation among the number of published monographs, GDP, population and the number of people attaining a university education. A regression model that incorporates GDP as explanatory variables explains well the variation of the number of monographs by countries (R²=0.77).     

Nalimov and the Polish Way Towards Science of Science

Nalimov's relations with Polish scientists date from the sixties. He was present in Polish science owing to his publication — also specially prepared for Polish journals — and for his participation in Polish-Soviet science of science conferences organized alternately in Poland and in (of that time) Soviet Union. He had a high opinion — which he many times expressed — on contemporary condition of Polish science of science as well as on its previous achievements. In such opinion he was not isolated; also John Bernal and Derek de Solla Price referred in their papers to precursory statements of Maria and Stanisław Ossowski formulating already in the thirties of XX century progressive programme for science of science research. Ten years earlier a similar views upon science presented world-famous Polish sociologist Florian Znaniecki. So, in the first part of the paper a common way of thinking and approaching science of science basic problems in Ossowski's, Znaniecki's and Nalimov's works is presented. In the second part the direct contacts of Nalimov with Polish science of science researchers widely described and commentated in Polish journals are discussed. At least using citation analysis the influence of Nalimov's ideas on science of science and scientometrics in Poland is presented. As a base to citation analysis the journal Problems of the Science of Science (1965–1999) and monographs devoted to scientometrics, bibliometrics and informetrics were taken. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.