, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 301–312 | Cite as

Two decades of "Scientometrics". An interdisciplinary field represented by its leading journal

  • Urs Schoepflin
  • Wolfgang Glänzel


The development of the field of bibliometric and scientometric research is analysed byquantitative methods to answer the following questions: (1) Is bibliometrics evolving from a softscience field towards rather hard (social) sciences (Schubert-Maczelka hypothesis)? (2) Canbibliometrics be characterised as a social science field with stable characteristics(Wouters-Leydesdorff hypothesis)? (3) Is bibliometrics a heterogeneous field, the sub-disciplinesof which have their own characteristics? Are these sub-disciplines more and more consolidating,and are predominant sub-disciplines impressing their own characteristics upon the whole field(Glänzel-Schoepflin hypothesis)? The Price Index per paper, the percentage of references toserials, the mean references age, and the mean reference rate are calculated based on all articlesand their respective references in Scientometrics in 1980, 1989, and 1997. The articles areclassified in six categories. The findings suggest, that the field is in fact heterogeneous, and eachsub-discipline has its own characteristics. While the contribution of these sub-disciplines inScientometrics was still well-balanced in 1980, papers dealing with case studies and methodologybecame dominant by 1997.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. L. Egghe (1997), Price Index and its relation to the mean and median reference age, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48: 564.573.Google Scholar
  2. W. GlÄnzel, U. Schoepflin (1994), Little scientometrics — Big scientometrics and beyond, Scientometrics, 30: 375.384.Google Scholar
  3. W. GlÄnzel, U. Schoepflin (1995), A bibliometric ageing study based on serial and non-serial reference literature in the sciences, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, held in River Forest, Illinois, June 7-10, Learned Information Inc., Medford, pp. 177-185Google Scholar
  4. W. GlÄnzel, U. Schoepflin (1999), A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences, Information Processing and Management, 35:31-44Google Scholar
  5. H. Moed (1989), Bibliometric measurement of research performance and Price.s theory of differences among the sciences, Scientometrics, 15:473-483Google Scholar
  6. A. S chubert, H. Maczelka (1993), Changes in Scientometrics, Social Studies of Science, 23:571-582Google Scholar
  7. D. J. De solla price (1970), Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology and non-science. In: C. E. Nelson, D.K. Pollak (Eds): Communication among Scientists and Engineers, Heat, Lexington, Mass., pp. 1-12Google Scholar
  8. P. Wouters, L. Leydesdorff (1994), Has Prices dream come true? Is scientometrics a hard science?, 31:193-222Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers/Akadémiai Kiadó 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Urs Schoepflin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Glänzel
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for the History of ScienceBerlin(Germany)
  2. 2.Research Association for Science Communication and Information e. V. (RASCI)Frankfurt/Oder(Germany)
  3. 3.Bibliometrics ServiceLibrary of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapest(Hungary)

Personalised recommendations