Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative conditions of scientometrics: The new challenges

  • STC and Scientometrics
  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While scientometrics is now an established field, there are challenges. A closer look at how scientometricians aggregate building blocks into artfully made products, and point-represent these (e.g. as the map of field X) allows one to overcome the dependence on judgements of scientists for validation, and replace or complement these with intrinsic validation, based on quality checks of the several steps. Such quality checks require qualitative analysis of the domains being studied. Qualitative analysis is also necessary when noninstitutionalized domains and/or domains which do not emphasize texts are to be studied. A further challenge is to reflect on the effects of scientometrics on the development of science; indicators could lead to ‘induced’ aggregation. The availability of scientometric tools and insights might allow scientists and science to become more reflexive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. W. Glänzel, U. Schoepflin, Little scientometrics, big scientometrics—and beyond,Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Evaluating the evaluators: A reply to our critics,Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 558–575.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Rip,Wetenschap als Mensenwerk, Ambo, Baarn, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. Healey, H. Rothman, P. K. Hoch, An experiment in science mapping for research planning,Research Policy, 15 (1986) 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. S. Woolgar, Beyond the citation debate: towards a sociology of measurement technologies and their use in science policy,Science and Public Policy, 18 (1991) No. 5, 319–326.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip,Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, Macmillan, London, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  7. B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators, of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. O. Amsterdamska, L. Leydesdorff, Citations: Indicators of significance?,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 449–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. J. L. Penick Jr., C. W. Pursell Jr., M. B. Sherwood, D. C. Swain, The Politics of American Science, 1939 to the Present (Revised Edition), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Leydesdorff, Problems with the ‘measurement’ of national scientific performance,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 149–152.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Anderson, 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 tale,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Irvine, B. Martin, T. Peacock, R. Turner, Charting the decline of British science,Nature, 316 (1985) 587–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. B. R. Martin, British science in the 1980s—Has the relative decline continued?,Scientometrics, 29 (1994) 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. G. N. Gilbert, Referencing as persuasion,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Rip, Mapping of science: Possibilities and limitations, in:A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1988, p. 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Whitley,The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. H. White, D. Sullivan, E. J. Barboni, The interdependence theory and experiment in revolutionary science: The case of parity violation,Social Studies of Science, 9 (1979) 303–327.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. J. Nederhof, R. F. Meijer, Development of bibliometric indicators for utility of research to users in society: measurement of external knowledge transfer via publications in trade journals,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. C. Le Pair, The citation gap of applicable science, in:A. F. J. Van Raan, (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsvier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1988, p. 537–553.

    Google Scholar 

  20. B. Latour, S. Woolgar,Laboratory Life, Sage, Beverly Hills, Cal., 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Rip, The Republic of Science in the 1990s,Higher Education, 28 (1994) 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. W. E. Snizek, Comment on Nicolini et al.,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 117–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. W. B. Arthur, Competing technologies, increasing returns and lock-in by historical events,Economic Journal, 99 (1989) 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. M. Dahl, S. Lahlou, Measurement of network effects from the EC Science/Stimulation Programmes,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Studies on Science, Technology and Society, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, (The Netherlands)

    A. Rip

Authors
  1. A. Rip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rip, A. Qualitative conditions of scientometrics: The new challenges. Scientometrics 38, 7–26 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461120

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461120

Keywords

Search

Navigation