Paper on scientometrics

David Wojick dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US
Sat Jul 27 14:27:13 EDT 2013 

Being equally shameless I will point to two studies done by my team when I 
was with DOE OSTI. They identify a topological transition in author network 
structure which seems to characterize the transition to a new paradigm. The 
transition pattern appears to be universal.

1. 
<http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/BettencourtKaiser_TopologicalTransition_OSTI.pdf>General 
Critical Properties of the Dynamics of Scientific Discovery (994-KB PDF) by 
Luís M.A. Bettencourt and David I. Kaiser, 2008, 
<http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/OSTIBettencourtKaiser.pdf>http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/OSTIBettencourtKaiser.pdf 
and

2. 
<http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/OSTIBettencourtKaiser.pdf>The 
dynamics of scientific discovery: the spread of ideas and structural 
transitions in collaboration networks (759-KB PDF) by Luís M. A. 
Bettencourt, et al., 2011, 
<http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/BettencourtKaiser_TopologicalTransition_OSTI.pdf>http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/BettencourtKaiser_TopologicalTransition_OSTI.pdf 


David Wojick

At 02:01 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>
>I have been reading with great interest the discussion on what constitutes 
>a revolution in science. If I am allowed a shameless plug, I suspect that 
>list members may find relevant to the discussion a recent paper in which 
>we attempted a quantitative exploration of the question of how new 
>disciplines emerge, and in particular if this process can be explained in 
>terms of the social interactions among scholars rather than by 
>"revolutions," such as new discoveries. Feedback welcome.Â
>
>Cheers,
>
>Social Dynamics of Science
><http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069>http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069
>
>
>Article 
>tools<http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130115/srep01069/pdf/srep01069.pdf>Download 
>PDF<http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130115/srep01069/ris/srep01069.ris>Citation<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPGR&publication=Scientific+Reports&title=Social+Dynamics+of+Science&contentID=10.1038%2Fsrep01069&volumeNum=3&issueNum=&numPages=&pageNumbers=pp%24%7BnPage.startPage%7D&orderBeanReset=true&publicationDate=2013-01-15&author=Xiaoling+Sun%2C+Jasleen+Kaur%2C+Sta%26%23x00161%3Ba+Milojevi%3Cspan+class%3D%22mb%22%3E%26%23x00107%3B%3C%2Fspan%3E%2C+Alessandro+Flammini%2C+Filippo+Menczer>Reprints<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPG&publication=Scientific+Reports&title=Social+Dynamics+of+Science&contentID=10.1038%2Fsrep01069&volumeNum=3&issueNum=&numPages=&pageNumbers=pp%24%7BnPage.startPage%7D&publicationDate=2013-01-15&cc=y&author=Xiaoling+Sun%2C+Jasleen+Kaur%2C+Sta%26%23x00161%3Ba+Milojevi%3Cspan+class%3D%22mb%22%3E%26%23x00107%3B%3C%2Fspan%3E%2C+Alessandro+Flammini%2C+Filippo+Menczer>Â 
>& 
>permissions<http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130115/srep01069/metrics>Article 
>metricsThe birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and 
>society. How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to 
>date allows us to validate competing theories on the different roles of 
>endogenous processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, 
>such as scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in 
>which the evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions 
>among agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting 
>and merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that 
>this social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the 
>relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These 
>results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social 
>interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several “science 
>of science” theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence 
>of disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data.
>
>
>
>The birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and society. 
>How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to date allows 
>us to validate competing theories on the different roles of endogenous 
>processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, such as 
>scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in which the 
>evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions among 
>agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting and 
>merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that 
>this social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the 
>relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These 
>results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social 
>interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several “science 
>of science” theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence 
>of disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data.
>
>On Friday, July 26, 2013, David Wojick wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>
>There are many sorts of scientific revolutions and those driven by new 
>observational technologies are a specific case. Altmetrics are perhaps 
>analogous to the revolution of microscopy. The fundamental gestalt change 
>to biology was recognizing that the observed world of life forms was 
>extremely limited. Similarly, we can now see scientific activity in a lot 
>of new ways. The fundamental question that now arises is what are we seeing?
>
>More precisely, what aspect of scientific activity does each metric 
>measure, including the IF? The fundamental concept that has gone out of 
>focus is impact. I expect we will find lots of different kinds of impact, 
>with a new deep understanding of science. That is the revolution in 
>progress. How far it gets no one knows. Many revolutions fail.
>
>David Wojick
>
>At 10:06 AM 7/26/2013, you wrote:
>>A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt 
>>switch of the mindset.Â
>>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
>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics
>>
>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>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 > 
>>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 >:
>>>
>>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>>>Dear Lutz,
>>>>Â
>>>>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.
>>>>Â
>>>>“Altmetrics†could perhaps serve as an ean 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.
>>>>Â
>>>>Staša Milojević & Loet Leydesdorff, 
>>>><http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406>Information Metrics 
>>>>(iMetrics<http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406>): A Research Specialty with a 
>>>>Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 
>>>>95<http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406>(1) (2013) 141-157; 
>>>><http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406>http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 .
>>>>Â
>>>>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.
>>>>Â
>>>>Best,
>>>>Loet
>>>>Â
>>>>PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J
>>>>Â
>>>>
>>>>Loet Leydesdorff
>>>>Professor, University of Amsterdam
>>>>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>>>>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
>>>>loet at leydesdorff.net ; 
>>>><http://www.leydesdorff.net/>http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>>>>Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>SPRU, University of 
>>>>Sussex; Visiting Professor, 
>>>><http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>ISTIC, Beijing;
>>>><http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Â
>>>>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
>>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics
>>>>Â
>>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>>>><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your emails!
>>>>Â
>>>>Dear Loet,
>>>>Â
>>>>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).
>>>>Â
>>>>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.
>>>>Â
>>>>Best,
>>>>Â
>>>>Lutz
>>>>Â
>>>>Gesendet von Windows-Mail
>>>>Â
>>>>Von: Godin, Benoît
>>>>Gesendet: ‎Donnerstag‎, ÃŽ, ‎25‎. ‎JuliâŽJuli‎ 
>>>>‎2013 013 ‎17‎:‎42
>>>>42
>>>>An: Bornmann, Lutz
>>>>Â
>>>>Â
>>>>Lutz,
>>>>Â
>>>>Thanks for sharing this piece with us.
>>>>Â
>>>>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.
>>>>Â
>>>>benoît
>>>>Â
>>>>Benoît Godin
>>>>Professeur
>>>>INRS (Montreal, Canada)
>>>>tel.: 1 438 396 3242
>>>>courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca
>>>>site web: <http://www.csiic.ca/>www.csiic.ca
>>>>Â
>>>>Â
>>>>
>>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ 
>>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff 
>>>>[loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET]
>>>>Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM
>>>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics
>>>>Â
>>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>>>><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>>>>
>>>>Dear Lutz:
>>>>Â
>>>>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).
>>>>Â
>>>>Best,
>>>>Loet
>>>>Â
>>>>Â
>>>>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
>>>>Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics
>>>>Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>Â
>>>>Available at: 
>>>><http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307>http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307
>>>>Â
>>>>---------------------------------------
>>>>Â
>>>>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
>>>>WWW: <http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/>www.lutz-bornmann.de
>>>>ResearcherID: 
>>>><http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008>http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008
>>>>Â
>
>
>
>--
>-Fil: <http://bit.ly/filmenczer>bit.ly/filmenczer
>w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and typos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20130727/c054fea4/attachment.html>

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list