Paper on scientometrics

Sat Jul 27 15:05:09 EDT 2013

Our work and that of several other groups was terminated when DOE made the 
high level decision that understanding scientific communication was not a 
worthwhile research topic, even though they claim that they want to speed 
up the transitioning of the many billions of dollars in research that they 
fund annually. So I hope your work continues as these are important metrics.

David

At 02:38 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>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.Â
>
>On Saturday, July 27, 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 
>
>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 LuÃs 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 LuÃs 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>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 thatÃ‚ list members may find relevant to the discussionÃ‚ aÃ‚ 
>>recent paper in which we attempted a quantitativeÃ‚ exploration ofÃ‚ 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 asÃ‚ new discoveries. Feedback welcome.Ã‚
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Social Dynamics of Science
>><http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069>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 Ã¢€œscience of scienceÃ¢€ theories exs 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.Ã‚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,
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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.
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>ÃƒÂ¢€œAltmetricsÃƒÂ¢€ could pld 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.
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Staša MilojeviÃƒ„‡ & Loet Leydesdorfforff, 
>>>><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 .
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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.
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Best,
>>>>Loet
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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 
>>>>Ã‚Â
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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!
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Dear Loet,
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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).
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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.
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Best,
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Lutz
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Gesendet von Windows-Mail
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Von: Godin, BenoÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â®t
>>>>Gesendet: ÃƒÂ¢€ŽDonnerstagÃƒÂ¢â‚â‚¬Ž, ÃƒÃ
Â½, ÃƒÂ¢€Ž25ÃƒÂ¢âÂ¢â‚¬Ž. 
>>>>ÃƒÂ¢€ŽJuliÃƒÂ¢Ã
Â½JuliÃƒÂ¢â¢â‚¬Ž ÃƒÂ¢€Ž2013 013 ÃƒÂ¢€Å¢â‚¬Å½17ÃƒÂ¢€Ž:ÃƒÂ¢€Ž42
>>>>br>
>>>>42
>>>>An: Bornmann, Lutz
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Lutz,
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Thanks for sharing this piece with us.
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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.
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>benoÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â®t
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>BenoÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â®t 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
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>>>><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>>>>
>>>>Dear Lutz:
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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).
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Best,
>>>>Loet
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>Available at: 
>>>><http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307>http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>---------------------------------------
>>>>Ã‚
>>>>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 
>>>>
>>>>Ã‚
>
>
>
>
>--
>-Fil: <http://bit.ly/filmenczer>bit.ly/filmenczer
>w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and t
>
>--
>-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/e4907857/attachment.html>