Abstract
Applied and basic approaches to scientific inquiry were compared through a bibliometric analysis of two Canadian journals in plant biology. No differences were found between the journals in the distribution of citations across different sections of research articles (that is, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). Moreover, no contrasts were found in the frequency of multiple authorships or in the age distribution of cited works. However, the journals differed significantly on three other bibliometric measures: author affiliation, number of references per article, and publication format of cited works.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D. J. AMICK, An index of scientific elitism and the scientists' mission,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 1.
S. ARUNACHALAM, S. MARKANDAY, Science in the middle-level countries: A bibliometric analysis of scientific journals of Australia, Canada, India, and Israel,Journal of Information Science, 3 (1981) 13.
C. BALOG, The distribution of reference citations in two agricultural journals,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 101.
S. J. K. BERTRAM,The Relationship Between Intra-Document Citation Location and Citation Level, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Illinois, 1970.
H. BROOKS, Applied research: Definitions, concepts, themes, in: H. BROOKS,The Government of Science, M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, 1968, p. 279–331.
CBE Style Manual Committee, Council of Biology Editors' Style Manual: A Guide to Authors, Editors, and Publishers in the Biological Sciences, 4th ed., American Institute of Biological Sciences, Arlington, VA, 1978.
D. K. GAPEN, S. P. MILNER, Obsolescence,Library Trends, 30 (1981) 107.
E. GARFIELD, Journal Citation Studies. 33. Botany journals. Part 2: Growth of the botanical literature and highly-cited items,Essays of an Information Scientist, ISI Press, Philadelphia, 4 (1981) 563.
W. D. GARVEY, K. TOMITA, P. WOOLF, The dynamic scientific-information user, in: W. D. GARVEY,Communication: The Essence of Science, Pergamon, Oxford, 1979, 256–279.
S. HERNER, Information gathering habits of workers in pure and applied science,Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 46 (1954) 228.
C. V. KIDD, Basic research — Description versus definition, in: N. KAPLAN (Ed.),Science and Society, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1965, 146–155.
R. LEVINS, Fundamental and applied research in agriculture,Science, 181 (1973) 523.
M. B. LINE, A. SANDISON, ‘Obsolescence’ and changes in the use of literature with time,Journal of Documentation, 30 (1974) 283.
D. DE S. PRICE, The difference between science and technology, in: D. DE S. PRICE,Science Since Babylon, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1975, p. 121.
F. REIF, The competitive world of the pure scientist,Science, 134 (1961) 1957.
W. B. ROUSE, On better mousetraps and basic research: Getting the applied world to the laboratory door,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-15 (1985) 2–8.
K. SUBRAMANYAM,Scientific and Technical Resources, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1981.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nordstrom, L.O. Applied versus basic science in the literature of plant biology: A bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics 12, 381–393 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016681
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016681