Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 39–55 | Cite as

Citation cycles and peer review cycles

  • P. Wouters
STC and Scientometrics

Abstract

Hardly anyoee will dispute that the creation of theScience Citation Index has made an important difference to science. It is less clear, however, in what way the science system has been influenced. This article proposes a qualitative model to better understand the mutual interactions involved. Science is pictured as an information processing cycle. Its quality is maintained in the “peer review cycle”. The main upshot of theSCI has been the creation of a second-order cycle on top of the primary knowledge production cycle. This is the citation cycle. The specialty of scientometrics has a key role in this citation cycle. The model enables a more profound understanding of the various feed back processes between the two cycles. Moreover, it may give insight in the development of hybrid and heterogenous scientific specialties like scientometrics.

Keywords

Knowledge Production Science Citation Index Science Policy Citation Analysis Bibliometric Indicator 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. E. Cozzens, P. Healy, A. Rip, J. Ziman,The Research System in Transition, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Ziman, Science in a ‘steady state’: The research system in transition, Tech. rep., Science Policy Support Group, London, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Ziman,Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scot, M. Trow,The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary, Societies, Sage, London, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Elzinga, Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria, in:The University Research System: The Public Policies of the Home of Scientist, Almqvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Leydesdorff, H. Etzkowitz, Emergence of a triple helix of university industry-government relations,Science & Public Policy, (1996) forthcoming.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Rip, The postmodern research system. Paper presented at the 1996 Progress Conference of the Department of Science and Technology Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, September 16–17 1996, (1996).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Slaughter, G. Rhoades, The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology,Social Studies of Science, 21 (1996) No. 3, 303–339.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. M. Hicks, J. S. Katz, Where is science going?,Science, Technology & Human Values, 21 (1996) No. 4, 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Ziman, Is science losing its objectivity?,Nature, 382 (1996) No. 6594, 751–754.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Solla Price,Science since Babylon, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1961.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Solla Price, The citation cycle, in:The American Society for Information Science, 8th Mid-Year Meeting, May 16–19, 1979 Collected Papers, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Latour, S. Woolgar,Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton University Press. 2nd edn., 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. C. Mullins,Theory and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology, Harper & Row, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. C. Mullins, The development of specialties in social science: The case of ethnomethology,Science Studies, 3 (1973) 245–273.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. C. Mullins, The development of a scientific specialty: The phage group and the origins of molecular biology,Minerva, 10 (1972) 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Lemaine, R. MacLeod, M. Mulkay, P. Weingart,Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, Mouton-Aldine, The Hague, 1976.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. J. Mulkay, G. N. Gilbert, S. Woolgar, Problem areas and research networks in science,Sociology, 9 (1975) 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. O. Edge, M. J. Mulkay,Astronomy Transformed: The Emergence of Radio Astronomy in Britain, Wiley, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Johnston, D. Robbins, The development of specialties in industrialised science,Sociological Review, 25 (1977) 87–108.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. G. O'Connor, A. J. Meadows, Specialization and professionalization in british geology,Social Studies of Science, 11 (1981) 77–89.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. Shrum, Scientific specialties and technical systems,Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984) 63–90.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. Sullivan, D. H. White, E. J. Barboni, The state of science: Indicators in the specialty of weak interactions,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 167–200.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. E. Studer, D. E. Chubin,The Cancer Mission. Social Contexts of Biomedical Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1980.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. G. Small, B. C. Griffith, The structure of scientific literature. i: Identifying and graphing specialties,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17–40.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. Etzkowitz, Academic-industry relations: A sociological paradigm for economic development, in:Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory. New Directions in, Technology Studies (L. Leydesdorff, P van den Besselaar (Eds), Pinter Publishers, London, 1994, p. 139–151.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. Knorr-Cetina,The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon, Oxford, 1981.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Callon, Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieux Bay, inPower, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? J. Law (Ed.) Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Sociological Review Monograph, 1986, p. 196–229.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. D. Knorr-Cetina, Scientific communities or variable transepistemic fields? A critique of quasieconomic models of science,Social Studies of Science, 12 (1982) 101–130.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. Leydesdorff,The Challenge of Scientometrics, DSWO Press, Leiden, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    N. Luhmann,Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Lynch, S. Woolgar,Representation in Scientific Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    H. R. Maturana, F. J. Varela,The Tree of Knowledge, New Science Library, Boston, 1988.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    I. Hacking,Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    D. J. Haraway,Simians, Cyborgs, and Women—The Reinvention of Nature, Free Associations Books, London, 1991.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    C. Geertz,Local Knowledge, Basic Books, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Chubin, E. J. Hackett,Peerless Science: Peer review and U.S. Science Policy, State University of New York Press, Albany, US, 1990.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. Rip, Contextual transformations in contemporary science, in:Keeping Science Straight: A Critical Look at the Assessment of Science and Technology A. Jamison (Ed.), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, 1988.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    C. E. Shannon, W. Weaver,The Mathematical Theory of Communication, The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1949.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    G. Bateson,Mind and Nature, Bantam, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    P. Wouters, The citation culture. How the citation came out of the bag and why it is hard to put it back in, to be published.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    D. Solla Price,Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology and Non-science, D. C. Heath & Co., Lexington, Mass., 1970, p. 3–22.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    F. Narin,Evaluative Bibliometrics, Computer Horizons Inc., Cherry Hill, N.J., 1976.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    N. G. Gilbert, S. Woolgar, The quantitative study of science: An examination of the literature,Science Studies, 4 (1974) No. 3, 279–294.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    L. Leydesdorff, O. Amsterdamska, Dimensions of citation analysis,Science, Technology & Human Values, 15 (1990) 305–335.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    H. Moed et al., New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications,Scientometrics, 33 (1995) 381–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    B. J. R. van der Meulen,Evaluation Processes in Science: the Construction of Quality by Science, Government and Industry, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, 1992.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    B. J. R. van der Meulen, Indicators in a framework of judgement and control, in:Representations of Science and Technology: Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Bielefeld 10–12 June, 1990,P. Weingart, R. Sehringer, M. Winterhager (Eds), DSWO Press, Leiden, 1992.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    P. Wouters, L. Leydesdorff, Has Prices, dream come true: Is scientometrics a hard science?,Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    W. Glänzel, U. Schoepflin, Little scientometrics, big scientometrics… and beyond?,Science, 30 (1994) 375–384.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Wouters
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology DynamicsAmsterdam(The Netherlands)

Personalised recommendations