Abstract
The present paper tries to compare international flows of knowledge as measured in meetings with flows as measured with papers in order to see what meetings can add to bibliometric studies. It is shown that most of known bibliometric results are confirmed with meetings, although more skewly: the concentration of proceedings, the dominance and attraction of the United States, and the decline of United Kingdom. However, important limitations are associated with ISTP, namely the low rate of authors' addresses, a limitation which reduces the interest of ISTP for bibliometric studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Drott, M. C. (1995), Reexamining the role of conference papers in scholarly communication.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46: 299–305.
Frame, J. D., F. Narin (1988), The national self-preoccupation of american scientists: An empirical view,Research Policy, 17: 203.
Garfield, E., A. Welliams-Dorof (1990), Language use in international research: A citation analysis,Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 511: 10–24.
Garvey, W. D. (1979),Communication: The Essence of Science, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Godin, B., F. Vallières (1996),Endangered Species? Une nouvelle estimation de la place du français dans les communications scientifiques. Rapport de recherche présenté au Conseil de la langue française, Québec.
Lyon, W. S. (1986), Scientometrics with some emphasis on communication at scientific meetings and through the invisible college,Journal of Chemical Information and Computing Science, 26: 47–52.
Liu, L., P. S. Danziger (1996), Fate of conference abstracts,Nature, 383: 20.
Martens, B., T. Saretzki (1993), Conferences and courses on biotechnology: Describing scientific communication by exploratory methods,Scientometrics, 27 (3): 237–260.
Martens, B., T. Saretzki (1994), Quantitative analysis of thematic structures in the field of biotechnology: A study on the basis of conference data,Scientometrics, 30 (1): 117–128.
Meadows, A. J. (1974),Communication in Science, London: Butterworths.
National Science Foundation (NSF) (1996),Science and Engineering Indicators 1996, Washington.
Nederhof, A. J., R. A. Zwann, R. E. Debruin, P. J. Dekker (1989), Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences: A comparative study,Bibliometrics, 15: 423–435.
Schubert, A., S. Zsindely, T. Braun (1983), Scientometric analysis of attendance at international scientific meetings,Scientometrics, 5(3): 177–187.
Soderqvist, T., A. M. Silverstein (1994a), Participation in scientific meetings: A new prosopographical approach to the disciplinary history of science—The case of immunology, 1951–72,Social Studies of Science, 24: 513–548.
Soderqvist, T., M. Silverstein (1994b), Studying leadership and subdisciplinary structure of scientific disciplines: Cluster analysis of participation in scientific meetings,Scientometrics, 30 (1): 243–258.
Wolek, F. W., B. C. Griffith (1974), Policy and informal communication in applied science and technology,Science Studies, 4: 411–420.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Godin, B. Measuring knowledge flows between countries: The use of scientific meeting data. Scientometrics 42, 313–323 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458374
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458374