Scientomettics, VoL 30, Nos. 2 - 3 (1994) 389-392

L I T T L E S C I E N C E , B I G S C I E N C E . . . A N D B E Y O N D *

L. EGGHE

LUQ Universitaire Campus, B-3590 Diepenbeek (Belgium) + and

UIA, Universiteitsplein L B-2610 Wilrijk (Belgium)

(Received November 22, 1993)

Introduction

I am very happy that the Gl#nzel-Schoepflin (GS) paper has been written and that

I could attend their talk on the last international conference on bibliometrics,

informetries and scientometrics (BIS). Their plead for more quality papers that touch

basic research is correct as is their plead for making more gap bridging studies

(bridging gaps between the several subdisciplines that are contained in BIS).

However I think that their vision on BIS as if there is a crisis going on is a bit

exaggerated. There are indeed several problems (discussed in the next section) but I

would like to remark that the increasing number of publications in BIS are not

decreasing in qua!ity on the average (at least that is my feeling). Also the

international conferences on BIS are an increasing success (admitting that this is

partially due to science policy studies, but I will go into that in the next section) and a

society has been founded. Even the more and more separate evolution of certain subdisciplines in BIS is a fact that I consider as normal, as long as there is time and money to organise joint activities.

I will discuss some of these points more deeply in the next section.

Quality aspects

That the number of papers in BIS has increased enormously the last decades is a clear fact. Concluding from this that the quality has gone down is a non proven fact.

*Comments on the paper by W. GL.Z.NZEL, U. SCHOEPFLIN, Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 375. + Permanent address.

Scientometrics 30 (1994) Elsevier~ Amsterdam - Oxford - New York - Tokyo

Akad~miai Kiad6, Budapest

L. EGGHE: COMMENTS ON G & S PAPER

It is my impression that relatively more high quality papers are written, and this is

certainly so in an absolute sense.

But what is quality? This is not always clear to define. The task of determining

quality papers is especially difficult in BIS due to the very heterogeneous ori~n.~ of

the researchers. Certainly, a paper of high quality on mathematical modelling of

certain BIS phenomena, will easily be recognised by mathematical researchers in the

field of BIS. On the contrary, a researcher dealing with more sociological aspects of

BIS will find it hard to recognise this quality or even to understand the paper! The

reverse problem may also occur: a mathematical researcher will not always follow the

arguments made in a sociological paper on BIS. Many BIS researchers (including many referees of BIS journals) feel that any

publication in BIS should be readable by any BIS researcher. This is typical for a

young discipline. The evolution will be towards more specialised journals that are

read by only a part of the BIS researchers. The same is obviously true in any

discipline that has a certain age (e.g. mathematics, chemistry, ...).

I must admit that, occasionally, a very mathematical paper of mine (but on a BIS

issue) is sent to a journal outside of the scope of BIS, since I fear too much trouble

with some referees who might insist on rewriting the paper in a less mathematical

manner (or even advise to reject the paper because they do not understand it). My point is that, when a paper deals with modelling BIS phenomena, and when this

paper is of high quality it should be published in a BIS journal, no matter how

technical it is. New scopes for present BIS journals might be necessary and/or new

journals should be founded, as is the case in any emerging discipline.

I agree with Gliinzel and Schoepflin that some "poorer" bibliometricians do not

have access to ~. large number of new data, but in the light of the above points, this is not always necessary: one can make deep BIS studies when approaching the problem

from a model theoretic point of view and then checking the models on older data.

Bridging the gaps

I am happy that the GS paper touches the "problem" of subdisciplines that are "drifting apart". As explained above, due to quality requirements, one cznnot prevent

subdisciplines to live their own lives. What is important however is that there will be researchers who study "borderline problems" or who study common problems in these different areas (thereby bridging the gaps between these subdisciplines).

390 Scientometrics 30 (1994)

L. EGGHE: COMMENTS ON G & S PAPER

Also important are the joint events, such as the biannual international

conferences on BIS (or any other name - even this I do not consider to be a very

iinportant issue) or the creation of a BIS society (at the last conference, the

"International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics" (ISSI) has been founded).

This does not exclude separate events to be organised (as e.g. separate conferences

on science policy). Compare again with other disciplines as e.g. mathematics (one I

know well), where there are numerous conferences on very narrow and specialised

topics, but where there is still an "International Conference of Mathematicians" going

on every four years.

For more ideas on "gap bridging " see the paper Egghe (1993) written on the

occasion of the special session on this theme during the last BIS conference (an

excellent initiative taken by H. Moed).

Science policy

In the GS paper there is mention of a certain "fear" that the number of science

policy studies is increasing in a faster way than the number of other studies in BIS.

This might be so, but I do not see a reason for fear in this. The growth of one

discipline does not necessarily imply the death of another. Even more is true: these

science policy studies need results from other good quality papers, if they are of high

quality themselves. It is true that in science policy studies more money is involved,

but that worries me either. Especially in science policy, large data sets are needed,

which are very expensive; we do not need them in e.g. mathematical studies in such

an extend. Furthermore, the S in BIS is the gateway for recognition of BIS by

politicians and other people that are dealing with output evaluation. Furthermore,

the techniques developed in science policy do often have applications in other BIS

areas (e.g. in acquisition policies of libraries, based on ageing aspects of literature).

.

Final remarks

The GS paper mentions the recent death of some well known BIS personalities

as one of the causes of the BIS "crisis". It is clear that we all feel sorry for the

great loss of these eminent researchers, but it is not true that this causes a

crisis: deaths are occurring in any discipline, and new names enter. Last decade many researchers have devoted themselves to gap bridging activities, thereby

continuing the integrating activities of the past generation.

Scientometrics 30 (1994) 391

L. EGGHE: COMMENTS ON G & S PAPER

2. The GS paper mentions the publication of several handbooks on BIS, but seems to regret that they all reflect a different viewpoint. Isn't this exactly what

we want? In view of the considerations of quality above, we cannot expect it otherwise. The time is over for books on BIS that only reflect general themes

and hence that are not very specialised. Also note the fact that all these books

are published after 1986, showing that we are proceeding in the right way.

3. With the authors Of the GS paper, I do regret that the commercialisation has

found its entry in BIS, as it has done in any other discipline (in fact the

popularity of science policy is caused by the quantitative evaluation of many

disciplines - often with financial consequences for the researchers of these

disciplines). The future consequences must be watched with great care, but this

isa problem in any research subject.

4. Finally, the critics on the poor quality of certain databases in our field is correct but, again, I do not see any difference with other disciplines. I do not see why

editors or authors in BIS would be less disciplined than those in other disciplines! Different standards between online and CD-ROM databases exist everywhere.

Conclusion

I think that most of the problems mentioned in the GS paper are caused by

natural evolutionary aspects of the discipline. It cannot be doubted that BIS is

growing into a more and more professional research discipline. There are indeed

problems of quality and of the fact that researchers have different origins. The first

problem is evoluating in the right direction and the second one should be considered as an enrichment rather than as a negative fact. One must admit, nevertheless, that

different subdisciplines will tend to live their own life, but that continuing contacts

(such as joint conferences) remain important and are necessary for the further

development of all these subdisciplines.

References

L. EC_,GHE (1993). Bridging the gaps-Conceptual discussions on informetries, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Bibliometrics, Scientometrics and Informetrics, Berlin, 11-15 September 1993 (to appear).

392 S cientometrics 30 (1994)