Paper on scientometrics

Sat Jul 27 14:38:54 EDT 2013

Thank you David, I was aware of your work with Bettencourt. In fact our
model is quite consistent with your description of transition in author
network structure. In both cases events correspond to changes in local
density/communities.

On Saturday, July 27, 2013, David Wojick wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> 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. General Critical Properties of the Dynamics of Scientific Discovery<http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/BettencourtKaiser_TopologicalTransition_OSTI.pdf>(994-KB PDF) by Luís M.A. Bettencourt and David I. Kaiser, 2008,
> http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/OSTIBettencourtKaiser.pdfand
>
> 2. The dynamics of scientific discovery: the spread of ideas and
> structural transitions in collaboration networks<http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/OSTIBettencourtKaiser.pdf>(759-KB PDF) by Luís M. A. Bettencourt, et al., 2011,
> 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 thatÂ
> list members may find relevant to the discussionÂ aÂ recent paper in which
> we attempted a quantitativeÂ exploration ofÂ 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 asÂ new discoveries. Feedback welcome.Â
>
> Cheers,
>
> Social Dynamics of Science
>  http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069
>
>
> 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 â€œscience
> of scienceâ€ 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
> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] on behalf of David Wojick [
> dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US');>]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM
> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET');>>:
>
>   Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> <http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
> 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
> Ã¢€œAltmetricsÃ¢€ 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 MilojeviÃ„‡ & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (<http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406>
> 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> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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 Â
>
> Â
> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [
> mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM
> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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
> 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, BenoÃƒÂ®t
> Gesendet: Ã¢€ŽDonnerstagÃ¢€Ž, ÃÅ½, Ã¢€Ž25Ã¢€Ž. Ã¢€ŽJuliÃ¢Å½JuliÃ¢€Ž
> Ã¢€Ž2013 013 Ã¢€Ž17Ã¢€Ž:Ã¢€Ž42
> 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
> benoÃƒÂ®t
> Â
> BenoÃƒÂ®t Godin
> Professeur
> INRS (Montreal, Canada)
> tel.: 1 438 396 3242
> courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca');>
> site web: www.csiic.ca
> Â
> Â
>
>  From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [
> SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [
> loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET');>]
> Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM
> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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
> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM
> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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
> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'bornmann at gv.mpg.de');>
> WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de
> ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008
> Â
>
>

-- 
-Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer
w/apologies <http://bit.ly/filmenczer> for mobile-induced brevity and t

-- 
-Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer
w/apologies <http://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/e1a24039/attachment.html>