Paper on scientometrics

[Fil Menczer]

Dear Lutz,

In the paper I mentioned earlier, "normal science" vs "revolutions" are not
defined.  But events are defined corresponding to birth and death of
disciplines, the model predictions are compared against large scale
empirical data sets, in terms of relationships between disciplines, authors,
and papers.

Hope this helps,

On Sunday, July 28, 2013, Bornmann, Lutz wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for
> large-scale empirical studies.
>
>  This is an interesting question: in which time period is the
> productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or
> during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a
> discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries
> (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here,
> although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in
> these periods.
>
>  Lutz
>
> Von meinem iPad gesendet
>
> Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US');>
> >:
>
>  Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On the theoretical side my
> issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of
> subfields. See
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/
> and
>
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/.
>
> But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during
> normal science for that is when many specific things get explained.
> Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity
> comes during the subsequent normal science period.
>
> David
>
> At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been
> more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations
> with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not
> clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced"
> altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of
> societal impact.
>
> The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a
> field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by
> the creation of subfields.
>
> Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined
> the development of the subfield structure in disciplines?
>
> Lutz
>
> Von meinem iPad gesendet
>
> Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" <andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL
> >:
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> Dear all,
>
> The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for
> monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence
> of knowledge-based societies; and  the need for efficient information
> retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves,
> and here I echo contributions of others.
>
> Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with
> changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of
> scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital
> scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual
> Knowledge, MIT 2013)
>
> What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on
> the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific
> revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical
> threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes
> this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one
> specialty only – sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking
> at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different
> changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to
> describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk
> about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference
> first.
>
> As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an
> occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics
> community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the
> turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just
> a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw )
>
> My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in
> the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang
> Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to
> watch/read (see
> http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven
> years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a
> evalua
>
>

-- 
-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/20130728/01cc6f18/attachment.html>