Skip to main content
Log in

Has Price's dream come true: Is scientometrics a hard science?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At the occasion of the completion of the 25th volume ofScientometrics, we present a combined bibliometric and social network analysis of this journal. In more than one respect,Scientometrics displays the characteristics of a social science journal. Its Price Index amounts to 43.0 percent, and is remarkably stable over time. The majority of the published items inScientometrics has been written by a single author. Moreover, the network of co-authorships is highly fragmented: most authors cooperate with no more than one or two colleagues. Both the citation networks of the authors and the network of title words indicate that the field is nonetheless highly cohesive. In this sense, a specific identity seems to have developed, indeed. Some indications concerning the character of this identity are discussed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • H. A. Abt, Publication practices in various sciences,Scientometrics, 24 (1992) 441–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. A. Abt, Long-term citation histories of astronomical papers,Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93 (1981) 207–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. T. Beck, Editorial statements,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. S. Burt,Toward a Structural Theory of Action. Network Models of Social Structure, Perception and Action. Academic Press, New York, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Callon, J.-P. Courtial, W. A. Turner, S. Bauin, From translation to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis,Social Science Information, 22 (1983) 199–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Cozzens, Using the archive: Derek Price's theory of differences among the sciences,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 431–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Cozzens, What do citation count? The rhetoric-first model,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 437–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Crane,Invisible Colleges, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Douglas,Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Leydesdorff, Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization,Research Policy, 19 (1989a) 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Leydesdorff, The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies. Introduction to the topical issue,Scientometrics, 15 (1989b) 333–347, at pp. 343 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Leydesdorff, O. Amsterdamska, Dimensions of citation analysis,Science, Technology & Human Values, 15 (1990) 305–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Lubrano, The hidden structure of Soviet science,Science, Technology & Human Values, 18 (1993) 147–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Luukkonen,Citations in the Rhetorical, Reward, and Communication Systems of Science, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Tampere, 1990.

  • T. Luukkonen, O. Persson, G. Sivertsen, Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration,Science, Technology & Human Values, 17 (1992) 101–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. MacRoberts, B. MacRoberts, Problems of citation analysis: a critical review,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40 (1989) 342–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Marton, Obsolence or immediacy? Evidence supporting Price's hypothesis,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. J. Meadows,Communication in Science, Butterworths, London, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Moed, Bibliometric measurement of research performance and Price's theory of differences among the sciences,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 473–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Moed, W. J. M. Burger, J. G. Frankfort, A. F. J. van Raan, The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered,Scientometrics, 8 (1985) 177–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. de Solla Price, Networks of scientific papers,Science, 149 (1965) 510–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. de Solla Price, Editorial statements,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. de Solla Price, Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience, In:C. E. Nelson, D. K. Pollack (Eds),Communication among Scientists and Engineers, Heath, Lexington, MA, 1970, pp. 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. de Solla Price, S. Gürsey, Studies in scientometrics, Part 1: Transience and continuance in scientific authorship,International Forum on Information and Documentation (1976), International Federation for Documentation, Moscow, 1(2), pp. 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. de Solla Price, S. Gürsey, Studies in scientometrics, Part 2: The relation between source author and cited author populations,International Forum on Information and Documentation (1976), International Federation for Documentation, Moscow, 1 (3), pp. 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Rip, J.-P. Courtial, Co-word maps of biotechnology: an example of cognitive scientometrics,Scientometrics, 6 (1984) 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • W. van Rossum, K. Y. v.d. Berg, P. Groenewegan, “Actor and Social Network Analyses of a Problem Fields: The Case of DES Research”, revised version of a paper presented at the WorkshopScience Indicators: Their Use in Science Policy and Their Role in Science Studies, Leiden, November 14–15th 1988.

  • A. Schubert, H. Maczelka, Cognitive changes in scientometrics during the 1980s, as reflected by the reference patterns of its core journal,Social Studies of Science, 23 (1993) 571–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Shrum, N. Mullins, Network analysis in the study of science and technology, In:A. F. J. van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 107–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Spiegel-Rösing, Science studies: Bibliometric and content analysis,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. D. Stokes, J. A. Hartley, Coauthorship & influence in specialties,Social Studies of Science, 19 (1989) 101–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Thompson, A. Wildavsky, R. Ellis,Cultural Theory, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Yitzhaki, D. Ben-Tamar, Number of references in biochemistry and other fields: a case study of the Journal of Biological Chemistry throughout 1910–1985,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Woolgar, Beyond the citation debate: towards a sociology of measurement technologies and their use in science policy,Science and Public Policy, 18 (1991) 319–326.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wouters, P., Leydesdorff, L. Has Price's dream come true: Is scientometrics a hard science?. Scientometrics 31, 193–222 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018560

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018560

Keywords

Navigation