Abstract
A conceptual framework is suggested within which various techniques for studying scientific advance may be viewed. The two axes arerelevance of the technique to a “true” measure of the rate of scientific advance, versusobjectivity of the technique. It is suggested that a situation exists somewhat analogous to the Heisenberg uncertainty, principle; the most objective technique, a simple publication count, is the least relevant to a true measure of scientific advance, while the most relevant technique, interviews with an eminent and knowledgeable scientist in the field, is the least objective. Between these two extremes lie a group of scientometric techniques which should be capable of producing analyses which are both satisfactorilly relevant and satisfactorily objective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
F. J. COLE, B. EALES, The History of Comparative Anatomy,Science Progress, 11 (1917) 578–596.
Chemistry in the Economy, an American Chemical Society Study supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1973.
J. H. COMROE, R. D. DRIPPS Scientific Basis for Support of Biomedical Science,Science, 192 (1976) 105–11.
TRACES —Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science. IIT Research Institute Report prepared for the U.S. National Science Foundation under Contract NSF C-535, December 15, 1968, F. NARIN, Principal Investigator.
Interactions of Science and Technology in the Innovative Process: Some Case Studies. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final Report prepared for the U.S. National Science Foundation under Contract NSF C-667, March 19, 1973.
C. W. SHERWIN, R. S. ISENSON,First Interim Report on Project HINDSIGHT (summary), Washington, D. C.: Office of The Director Of Defense Research and Engineering, June 30, 1966.
H. SMALL, Co-citation in the Scientific Literature: A new Measure of the Relationship Between Two Documents,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (1973) 265–269.
H. SMALL, B. C. GRIFFITH, The Structure of Scientific Literatures I: Identifying and Graphing Specialties,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17–40.
This terminology was suggested by Prof. D. de SOLLA PRICE.
E. GARIELD, Citation Indexes for Science,Science, 122 (1955) 108–111.
P. MARTINO, Research Evaluation Through Citation-Indexing, U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AFOSR Research 67-300, AD 659 336, 226–227, 1967.
M. P. CARPENTER, F. NARIN, Source of Support for Highly Utilized Chemistry Research, (manuscript in preparation).
F. NARIN, G. PINSKI, H. H. GEE, Structure of the Biomedical Literature,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27 (1976) 25–45.
G. PINSKI, F. NARIN, Citation Influence for Journal Aggregates of Scientific Publications: Theory, with Application to the Literature of Physics,Information Processing and Management, 12, (1976) 197–312.
National Science Board,Science Indicators Reports — 1972, 1974 and1976. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Priting Office, 1973, 1975 and 1977. Report of the National Science Board, U.S. National Science Foundation.
F. NARIN, M. P. CARPENTER, National Publication and Citation Comparisons,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (1975) 80–93.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Narin, F. Objectivity versus relevance in studies of scientific advance. Scientometrics 1, 35–41 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016838
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016838