Paper on scientometrics

Fri Jul 26 10:48:14 EDT 2013

But revolution implies discontinuities  - big ones – not, I think, small stepwise progression.

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:32 AM
To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics

It is not a necessary condition for a revolution that there are tangible research findings (big shots against the existing paradigm). The forces to change the paradigm can be located outside of the field and can lead to small stepwise changes until the revolution (the final and generally accepted change of the taxonomy) occurs.

Lutz

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Chen,Chaomei
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:07 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics

A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt switch of the mindset.
I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in scientometrics.
Chaomei Chen

________________________________
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics
Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change is a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize scientific revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the early stages are signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we certainly see with altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently create scientific revolutions and social media provide a new observational technology.

It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue about the new metrics and what they mean.

David Wojick
On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" <lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE<mailto:lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE>> wrote:
Dear Loet,

Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc.

I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations.

Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside.

Best,

Lutz

Von meinem iPad gesendet

Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET<mailto:loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET>>:
Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
Dear Lutz,

Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study.

“Altmetrics” could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust.

Staša Milojević & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? <http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406> Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 .

The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous.

Best,
Loet

PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? ☺

________________________________
Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
loet at leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> Beijing;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics

Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
Thanks for your emails!

Dear Loet,

As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today).

Benoit,
Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact.

Best,

Lutz

Gesendet von Windows-Mail

Von: Godin, Benoît
Gesendet: ‎Donnerstag‎, ‎25‎. ‎Juli‎ ‎2013 ‎17‎:‎42
An: Bornmann, Lutz

Lutz,

Thanks for sharing this piece with us.

However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet.

benoît

Benoît Godin
Professeur
INRS (Montreal, Canada)
tel.: 1 438 396 3242
courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca<mailto:benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca>
site web: www.csiic.ca<http://www.csiic.ca/>

________________________________
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET<mailto:loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET>]
Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics

Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
Dear Lutz:

Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science).

Best,
Loet

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics

Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics?
The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society.

Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307

---------------------------------------

Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann
Division for Science and Innovation Studies
Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society
Hofgartenstr. 8
80539 Munich
Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265
Mobil: +49 170 9183667
Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de<mailto:bornmann at gv.mpg.de>
WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de<http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/>
ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20130726/b0df5abe/attachment.html>