Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
156 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics (1501.05462v3)

Published 22 Jan 2015 in cs.DL

Abstract: Scientometrics is the study of the quantitative aspects of the process of science as a communication system. It is centrally, but not only, concerned with the analysis of citations in the academic literature. In recent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and evaluation of research performance. In this review we consider: the historical development of scientometrics, sources of citation data, citation metrics and the "laws" of scientometrics, normalisation, journal impact factors and other journal metrics, visualising and mapping science, evaluation and policy, and future developments.

Citations (714)

Summary

  • The paper provides a detailed examination of the development and application of citation metrics in scientometrics.
  • It compares major data sources like Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to assess research impact.
  • It recommends normalization and visualization techniques to address citation skewness and guide future research evaluation.

A Comprehensive Review of Scientometrics: Theory and Practice

The paper "A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics" by John Mingers and Loet Leydesdorff provides an exhaustive exploration of the field of scientometrics, focusing on its historical evolution, citation metrics, and the application of these metrics in evaluating scientific research. This review is notably anchored on the role of citations as a central element of scientometric studies.

Historical Context

Scientometrics, originating from Nalimov's definition in 1971, is concerned with the quantitative analysis of science as a communication process. It has evolved alongside related fields such as bibliometrics, informetrics, and altmetrics, into a critical tool for evaluating research performance. The introduction of the Science Citation Index (SCI) by Eugene Garfield in the 1950s was a pivotal moment, forming the empirical foundation for citation analysis.

Citation Analysis

The paper explores the mechanics of citation analysis, introducing key indicators like the impact factor (IF) and the h-index. The h-index, despite its widespread use, is highlighted for its limitations, including insensitivity to the number of citations beyond a certain threshold. Additionally, the authors explore alternative metrics like the SNIP and SJR, which attempt to account for disciplinary differences in citation practices.

Data Sources and Comparison

The review compares major databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. It notes significant variations in coverage, especially across the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Google Scholar, while comprehensive, suffers from data quality issues, posing challenges for consistency and reliability in scientometric analyses.

Metrics and Normalization

The authors discuss the skewness of citation distributions and the need for normalization methods, such as the Leiden Ranking Methodology and source normalization techniques. These methodologies aim to adjust for field-specific citation patterns, facilitating more accurate cross-disciplinary comparisons.

Visualization and Mapping

Visualization is another critical aspect of scientometrics covered in the paper. The use of tools like VOSviewer supports the mapping of scientific fields, enabling a greater understanding of citation networks and the relationships between research domains.

Implications and Future Directions

Scientometrics plays a crucial role in research evaluation and policy-making processes, driven in part by the neo-liberal agenda demanding accountability and transparency. The authors caution about the performative effects of citation metrics on academic behavior, recommending a balanced approach that incorporates both bibliometric data and peer review.

The paper also outlines future developments in altmetrics as a supplementary measure to traditional citations, considering their potential to capture impact beyond academia. However, the authors highlight areas that require further theoretical development, especially concerning the reasons behind citation behaviors and the broader implications of citation metrics on research innovation and interdisciplinarity.

Conclusion

In sum, this paper offers a rich, detailed overview of scientometrics, providing a strong foundation for understanding its methodologies and their applications. It underscores the importance of careful metric selection and normalization to ensure fair and meaningful evaluations across different scientific domains. As scientometrics continues to evolve, its integration with new forms of altmetrics will likely enhance the way research impact is understood and measured.