Skip to main content
Log in

Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ... and beyond?

  • Discussion Paper
  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. de Solla Price,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  2. B. C. Brookes, Biblio-, Sciento-, Infor-metrics??? What are we talking about? In:Egghe, Rousseau (Eds),Informetrics 89/90, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  3. O. Nacke, Informetrie. Ein neuer Name für eine neue Disziplin,Nachrichten für Dokumentation, 1979, 219–226.

  4. M. Weinstock, Citation indices,Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, 5 (1971) 16–40.

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. Egghe, R. Rousseau,Introduction to Informetrics. Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. P. Courtial,Introduction à la scientometrie, Anthropos, Paris, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. F. J. van Raan, (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. Bujdosó,Bibliometria és tudománymetria, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár Könyvtártudományi és Módszertani Központ — MTA Könyvtára, Budapest, 1986.

  9. I. K. Ravichandra Rao,Quantitative Methods for Library and Information Science, Wiley-Eastern 1983, Revised edition 1984.

  10. U. Schoepflin, Zur Situation der Scientometrie in der BRD,Deutscher Dokumentartag 1990, 101–112, 1991.

  11. A. J. Lotka, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity,J. Washington Acad. Sci., 16 (1926) 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. C. Bradford, Sources of information on specific subjects,Engineering, 137 (1934) 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glänzel, W., Schoepflin, U. Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ... and beyond?. Scientometrics 30, 375–384 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018107

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018107

Keywords

Navigation