Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The citation gap between printed and instrumental output of technological research: The case of the electron microscope

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The merits and shortcomings of bibliometric evaluation techniques are well known; the reliability of the techniques varies according to the discipline. For technology the reliability is small. The electron microscope is a clear case of extreme mismatch between the number of citations received and the impact of the instrument in a wide area of science. The instrument is comparable to a scientific publication in the way in which it is used and referred to in the literature. In this paper we estimate the size of the citation gap, i.e. the number of citations an author misses because the results of his research are made public in the form of an instrument instead of via an article in a journal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. BAKKER, C. J. G. (1977), Elektronenmicroscopie in Nederland. Overzicht en evaluatie van 40 jaar speur en ontwikkelingswerk in een technisch-fysisch specialisme, FOM report no. 43105, Ultrecht.

  2. CHANG, K. H., DIEKS D., EDELMAN P. (1975) Evaluation of a subfield of physics; magnetic resonance and relaxation studies in the Netherlands, FOM-report 37175, FOM, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  3. GARFIELD, E. (1979),Citation Indexing—Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  4. GARFIELD, E. (1984/1986), The articles most cited in 1961–1982. The 1000 most cited articles in this period are published serially inCurrent Contents d. d. 4-6-84, 16-7-84, 27-8-84, 1-10-84, 15-10-84, 8-4-85, 20-5-85, 19-8-85, 24-2-86, 21-4-86.

  5. GARFIELD, E. (1986b), The 250 most-cited primary authors in the 1984 SCI, part 1. Names, ranks, and citation numbers,Current Contents 1986, no. 45, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  6. GARFIELD, E. (1987), Citation data is subtle stuff,The Scientist, (April 6) 9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. MEEK, G. A. (1976),Practical Electron Microscopy for biologists, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  8. MORAVCSIK, M. J. (1976), A progress report on the quantification of science. University of Oregon.

  9. PAIR, C. LE (1988), The Citation Gap of applicable science. In:Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, A. F. J. VAN RAAN (Ed.), Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 537–553.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technology Foundation (STW), P. O. Box 3021, 3502 GA, Utrecht, (The Netherland)

    W. P. Van Els, C. N. M. Jansz & C. Le Pair

Authors
  1. W. P. Van Els
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. N. M. Jansz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Le Pair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Els, W.P., Jansz, C.N.M. & Le Pair, C. The citation gap between printed and instrumental output of technological research: The case of the electron microscope. Scientometrics 17, 415–425 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017462

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017462

Keywords

Search

Navigation