, Volume 30, Issue 2–3, pp 375–384 | Cite as

Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ... and beyond?

  • W. Glänzel
  • U. Schoepflin
Discussion Paper


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.


Research Program Research Result Experimental Research Methodological Research Internal Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. de Solla Price,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    O. Nacke, Informetrie. Ein neuer Name für eine neue Disziplin,Nachrichten für Dokumentation, 1979, 219–226.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Weinstock, Citation indices,Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, 5 (1971) 16–40.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Egghe, R. Rousseau,Introduction to Informetrics. Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. P. Courtial,Introduction à la scientometrie, Anthropos, Paris, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. F. J. van Raan, (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Bujdosó,Bibliometria és tudománymetria, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár Könyvtártudományi és Módszertani Központ — MTA Könyvtára, Budapest, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. K. Ravichandra Rao,Quantitative Methods for Library and Information Science, Wiley-Eastern 1983, Revised edition 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U. Schoepflin, Zur Situation der Scientometrie in der BRD,Deutscher Dokumentartag 1990, 101–112, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. J. Lotka, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity,J. Washington Acad. Sci., 16 (1926) 317–323.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. C. Bradford, Sources of information on specific subjects,Engineering, 137 (1934) 85–86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Glänzel
    • 1
    • 2
  • U. Schoepflin
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Information Science and Scientometric Research Unit (ISSRU)Library of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapest(Hungary)
  2. 2.Max-Planck Institute for Human Development and EducationBerlin(Germany)
  3. 3.Research Association for Science Communication and Information (RASCI)Berlin(Germany)

Personalised recommendations