Skip to main content
Log in

In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we take position in the ‘citation theory’ debate. First we revisit relevant earlier work of our group and try to assemble the findings. We criticise the constructivist fashion in sociology of science concerning citation practices. With statistical arguments we show the strong limitations of any ‘citation theory’ at the ‘citer side’. We emphasize that citations should be conceived of as ‘binding properties’ of an individual publication, from which many types of structuring follow. As keywords also have such binding properties at the same time, and as there are empirically established relations between the citation domain and the word domain, it is useless to develop a model concerning citations only. We envisage an interesting development, both theoretically and empirically, of what we would like to call ‘bibliometric chemistry’.

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

  • Braam, R. R., H. F. Moed, andA. F. J. van Raan (1991), Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. Part I: Structural aspects.Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS) 42, 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braam, R. R., H. F. Moed, andA. F. J. van Raan (1991), Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. Part II: Dynamical aspects.Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS) 42, 252–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, S. E. (1989)., What do citations count?. The Rhetoric First model.Scientometrics 15, 437–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkana, Y., J. Lederberg, R. K. Merton, A. Thrackray, andH. Zuckerman (Eds) (1977),Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators, New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979),Citation Indexing—Its Theory and Applications in Science, Technology and Humanities, Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1977), Can science be measured? In:Y. Elkana et al (Eds) op. cit., 39–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. N. (1995), Feferal research impact assessment: Axioms, approaches, applications,Scientometrics, 34, 163–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T. (1997), Why has Latour's theory of citation been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis,Scientometrics, 38, 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987),Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., andS. Woolgar (1979),Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts, Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (1987), Towards a theory of citations?Scientometrics, 12, 305–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (1998), Theories of citation?Scientometrics, 43, (this issue).

  • van Leeuwen, Th. N., E. J. Rinia, andA. F. J. van Raan (1996),Bibliometric Profiles of Academic Physics Research in the Netherlands. Research report to the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), Leiden: CWTS. Report 96-09.

  • MacRoberts, M. H., andB. R. MacRoberts (1987), Quantitative measures of communication in science: a study of the formal level,Social Studies of Science, 36, 223–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacRoberts, M. H., andB. R. MacRoberts (1987), Testing the Ortega Hypothesis: facts and artifacts,Scientometrics, 12, 293–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRoberts, M. H., andB. R. MacRoberts (1989), Another test of the normative theory of citing,Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS), 16, 151–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968), The Matthew effect in science,Science, 159, 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973),The Sociology of Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., W. J. M. Burger, J. G. Frankfort, andA. J. F. van Raan (1985), The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance,Research Policy, 14, 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., andTh. N. van Leeuwen (1995), Improving the Accuracy of the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Impact Factors,Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS), 46, 461–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., andTh. N. van Leeuwen (1996), Impact factors can mislead,Nature, 381, 186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F. (1976),Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1988), The validity and reliability of evaluation of scholarly performance. In:A. F. J. van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, p. 193–228. Amsterdam, North-Holland/Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. andA. F. J. van Raan (1989), A validation study of biobliometric indicators: the comparative performance of cum laude doctorates in chemistry,Scientometrics, 17, 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. andA. F. J. van Raan (1987), Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: a comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics,Scientometrics, 11, 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. andA. F. J. van Raan (1987), Citation theory and the Ortega Hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12, 325–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega Y Gasset, J. The Revolution of the Masses, New York: Norton, 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. F. andA. F. J. van Raan (1994), A bibliometric profile of top-scientists. A case study in chemical engineering,Scientometrics, 29, 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. F. andA. F. J. van Raan (1994), On determinants of citation scores: a case study in chemical engineering,Journal of the American Soceity for Information Science (JASIS), 45, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. F. andA. F. J. van Raan (1995), Cognitive resemblance and citation relations in chemical engineering publications.Journal of the American Society for Information science (JASIS), 46, 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. De Solla (1963),Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. De Solla (1975),Science since Babylon (enlarged ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (1988), Impact of research performance as measured by citations: a new model. In:L. Egghe andR. Rousseau (Eds),Informetrics 87/88, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (1996), Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises,Scientometrics, 36, 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (1991), Beyond the citation debate. Towards a sociology of measurement technologies and their use in science policy,Science and Public Policy, 18, 319–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P. (1997), Citation cycles and peer review cycles,Scientometrics, 38, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1987), Citation analysis and the complex problem of intellectual influence,Scientometrics, 12, 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Comments on Theories of Citation?L. Leydesdorff,Scientometrics, 43 (1998) No. 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Raan, A.F.J. In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much. Scientometrics 43, 129–139 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458401

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458401

Keywords

Navigation