Skip to main content
Log in

Little science, big science... and beyond

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

I think that most of the problems mentioned in the GS paper are caused by natural evolutionary aspects of the discipline. It cannot be doubted that BIS is growing into a more and more professional research discipline. There are indeed problems of quality and of the fact that researchers have different origins. The first problem is evoluating in the right direction and the second one should be considered as an enrichment rather than as a negative fact. One must admit, nevertheless, that different subdisciplines will tend to live their own life, but that continuing contacts (such as joint conferences) remain important and are necessary for the further development of all these subdisciplines.

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. L. Egghe (1993). Bridging the gaps-Conceptual discussions on informetrics,Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Bibliometrics, Scientometrics and Informetrics, Berlin, 11–15 September 1993 (to appear).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Comments on the paper byW. Glänzel, U. Schoepflin,Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 375.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Egghe, L. Little science, big science... and beyond. Scientometrics 30, 389–392 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018109

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018109

Keywords

Navigation