Abstract
With respect to the issue of whether the scientometric measurement of “the decline of British science” is an artifact of the specific database and underlying assumptions in methods, I argue that there are fewer analytical objections against measurement by usingSciSearch Online than against other methods (based on the “fixed journal set” and “fractional counting”). The measurement of “international co-authorship”, i.e. a network indicator, should not be confounded with measurement of performance of a single nation. The time series for the different subsets of UK-publications, which have been proposed, are given. None of the indicators can be shown to exhibit a trend (in contrast to a drift). The hypothesis of a decline has therefore to be rejected.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes and references
L. Leydesdorff,Methoden ter Bepaling van de Percentuele Bijdrage van Nederlandse Publicaties aan de “Sources” van de Science Citation Index, Amsterdam, April, 1985. The figures for Holland were published in:L. Leydesdorff, The Science Citation Index and the measurement of national performance in terms of numbers of scientific publications,Scientometrics, 7 (1989) 111–20.
J. Irvine, B. Martin, T. Peacock, R. Turner, Charting the decline of British science,Nature, 316 (August 15, 1985) 587–590.
B. Martin, The bibliometric assessment of UK scientific performance? A reply to Braun, Glänzel and Schubert,Scientometrics, this issue.
J. Irvine, B. Martin, Is Britain spending enough on science,Nature, 323 (1986, October 16) 591–4;B.R. Martin, J. Irvine, F. Narin, C. Steritt, The continuing decline of British science,Nature, 330 (1987), November 12) 123–6.
British science over the hill, Editorial ofNature, 323 (1986, October 23) 655–6;D.C. Smith, P.M.D. Collins, D.M. Hicks, S.M. Wyatt, National performance in basic research,Nature, 323 (1986) 681–4.
J. Andersons, P.M.D. Collins, J. Irvine, P.A. Isard, B.R. Martin, F. Narin, K. Stevens, On-line approaches to measuring national scientific output — A cautionary output,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 153–161.
Leydesdorff,op. cit.,Methoden ter Bepaling van de Percentuele Bijdrage van Nederlandse Publicaties aan de “Sources” van de Science Citation Index, Amsterdam, April, 1989.
L. Leydesdorff, Problems with the “measurement” of national scientific performance,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 153–61.
Andersons et al.,op. cit. (1988)
L. Leydesdorff, Performance figures for British science,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 270.
G. Lewison, P. Cunningham, The use of bibliometrics in the evaluation of Community biotechnology research programmes, in:A.F.J. van Raan, A.J. Nederhof, H.F. Moed (Eds),Science & Technology Indicators. Their Use in Science Policy and Their Role in Science Studies, DSWO, Leiden, 1989, 99–114.
L. Leydesdorff, The prediction of science indicators using information theory,Scientometrics, 19 (1990) 297–324.
Leydesdorff op. cit.,Methoden ter Bepaling van de Percentuele Bijdrage van Nederlandse Publicaties aan de “Sources” van de Science Citation Index, Amsterdam, April, 1988.
H.F. Moed, The use of non-line databases for bibliometric analysis, in:L. Egghe, R. Rousseau (Eds.),Informetrics 87/88, Amsterdam, etc.: Elsevier, 1988 pp. 137f.
T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Assessing assessments of British science: some facts and figures to accept or to decline,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 165–70.
Leydesdorff,op. cit.,Methoden ter Bepaling van de Percentuele Bijdrage van Nederlandse Publicaties aan de “Sources” van de Science Citation Index, Amsterdam, April, 1988.
L. Leydesdorff, Some methodological guidelines for the interpretation of scientometric mappings,R & D Evaluation Newsletter 1989, Nr. 2, 4–7.
See also:Leydesdorff,op. cit., note 13..
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leydesdorff, L. On the “scientometric decline” of British science. One additional graph in reply to Ben Martin. Scientometrics 20, 363–367 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017526
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017526