Conclusions
According to the title, there is no doubt that the objective of the authors is to attract attention on the state of health of quantitative studies of science (scientometrics) and encourage research vigor. Every effort in this direction is praised in any field. At the same time, it is strange that (instead of concentrating on the patient) they have extended the set of quantitative methods without considering the purpose of their application and nature of treated data. Thus, some of the statements (e.g. growing number of publications) “seem” to be more names imposed on facts than the facts themselves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References and notes
I. Spiegel-Rösing, The study of science, technology and society: recent trends and future challenges, In:I. Spiegel-Rösing, D. S. Price (Eds)Science, Technology and Society, London, Sage, 1977, p. 7–42.
G. N. Gilbert, S. Woolgar, The quantitative study of science: an examination,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 3, 279–294.
A. Rip, J. P. Courtial, Co-word maps of biotechnology: an example of cognitive scientometrics,Scientometrics, 6 (1984) 381–400.
R. N. Broadus, Toward a definition of ‘Bibliometrics’,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 373–379.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Comments on the paper byW. Glänzel, U. Schoepflin,Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 375.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Todorov, R. Facts or imposed names on facts?. Scientometrics 30, 461–464 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018125
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018125