Scientometrics

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 205–218 | Cite as

Scientometrics: State-of-the-art

  • A. F. J. Van Raan
Future Perspectives

Abstract

In this presentation we argue that the core research activities of scientometries fall in four interrelated areas: science and technology indicators, information systems on science and technology, the interaction between science and technology, and cognitive as well as socioorganisational structures in science and technology.

We emphasize that an essential condition for the healthy development of the field is a careful balance between application and basic work, in which the applied side is the driving force. In other words: scientometrics is primarily a field of applied science. This means that the interaction users' is at least as important as the interaction with colleague-scientists. We state that this situation is very stimulating, it strengthens methodology and it activates basic work. We consider idea of scientometrics lacking theoretical content or being otherwise in a 'crisis-like' situation groundless.

Scientometrics is in a typical developmental stage in which the creativity of its individual researchers and the ‘climate’ and facilities of their institutional environments determine the Progress in the field and, particularly, its relation with other disciplines. These aspects also contribute substantially to the reputation of scientometrics as a research field respected by the broader scientific community. And this latter point is important, both to let quantitative studies of science and technology take more advantage of an academic environment, as well as to keep it innovative and thus attractive in terms of applications at the longer term.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Scientometric indicator datafiles. A multidimensional machine readable database for evaluative purposes.Scientometrics, 28 (1993) 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. F. J. van Raan, Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises,Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Egghe, Bridging the gaps: Conceptual discussions on informetrics,Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Narin, K. S. Hamilton, D. Olwastro,Linkage between agency-supported research and patented industrial technology, Research Evaluation, (1996) to be published.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Lewison, Publications from the European Community's Biotechnology Action Programme (BAP): Multi-nationality, acknowledgement of support, and citations,Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. F. Moed, R. E. De Bruin, Th. N. Van Leeuwen, New bibliometric tools for the assessment national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications,Scientometrics, 33 (1995) 381–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Gabolde, Opening address to the First Int. Conf. on the Evaluation of Research, Technology Development,Scientometrics, 34 (1995) 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. N. Kostoff, Federal research impact assessment: Axioms, approaches, applications,Scientometrics, 34 (1995) 163–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Cozzens, U. S. research assessment: Recent developments,Scientometrics, 34 (1995) 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. A. Smith, Evaluating research, technology and development in Canadian industry: Meeting challenges of industrial innovation,Scientometrics, 34 (1995) 527–539.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Glänzel, U. Schoepflin, Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ….. and beyond?Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. E. Roosendaal, Roles of bibliometrics in scientific communication,Research Evaluation, (1996) to be published.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. J. W. TIijssen, A. F. J. Van Raan, Mapping changes in science and technology: bibliometric cooccurrence analysis of the R&D literature.Evaluation Review, 18 (1994) 98–115.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Glänzel, The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology,Scientometrics, (1996) 167-176.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. F. Moed, Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers: A first overview,Scientometrics, 35 (1996) 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. S. Katz, Bibliometric standards: Personal experience and lessons learned,Scientometrics, 35 (1996) 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Debackere, B. Clarysse, Advanced bibliometric methods to model the relationship between entry-behavior and networking in emerging technological communities,Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS), (1996) to be published.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Moxham, J. Anderson, Peer review: a view from the inside,Science and Technology Policy, (1992) 7–15.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. J. Nederhof, E. C. M. Noyons, International comparison of departments' research performance the humanities,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, (JASIS), 43 (1992) 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Zitt, F. Perrot, R. Barre, The transition from ‘national’ to ‘transnational’ model and related measures of countries' performance,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, (JASIS), (1996) to be published.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Grupp, U. Schmoch, K. Koschatzky, Science and technology infrastructure in Baden-Württemberg and its orientation toward future regional development,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, (JASIS), (1996) to be published.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. F. J. Van Raan
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Science and Technology StudiesUniversity of LeidenRB LeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations