Talk:Scientometrics
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Untitled
If you say that an institute is "heavily used", what does it mean in English? One could use a tool or method or data, or perhaps someone's work or results, but to use an institute (except as a refuge or career ladder, of course)? --Oop (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The subject could be merged with Bibliometrics, but bibliometrics is actually a sub-field of scientometrics, where the former refers to "measuring the quantitative aspects of publications, wheras scientometrics represents a broader view" [1].
- ^ Vinkler, 2010. The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge. pp 2-3.
Furthermore a reference could be made to the Derek J. de Solla Price Medal, an biannual award for the best researcher in the field of scientometrics.130.115.196.209 (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't quite agree that the fields bibliometrics and scientometrics should be merged. Indeed bibliometrics can often be considered a subfield within scientometrics, but its methods could as well be used outside the context of science. At the same time, scientometrics has in the past years become more and more diverse. I'll try to edit the article to reflect this. effeietsanders 12:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Per effeiets's observation I've boldly removing the (now rather stale) merger tag. I've also tried to reframe the lead on the Bibliometrics page (permalink) to help distinguish the two notions. 86.181.67.166 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused. The edits at bibliometrics suggest that "scientometrics" is a subfield of "bibliometrics", whereas effeietsanders seems to argue the opposite... --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm certainly no expert on this, but I suspect that the two fields currently intersect. Fwiw, my practical experience of bibliometric research is confined to work in the development of some standardized search strings for use with PubMed queries aimed at retrieving articles that may contain particular types of pertinent information – something I don't think would come under "scientometrics". I boldly removed the merge tag, but of course it could also go back if you think further discussion is appropriate. 86.181.67.166 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused. The edits at bibliometrics suggest that "scientometrics" is a subfield of "bibliometrics", whereas effeietsanders seems to argue the opposite... --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledgement
The text from the sections on Impact Factor, Science Citation Index, and Acknowlegement index was copied from the ledes of their respective articles. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Criticisms
I think that there should be a section for criticisms of scientometrics (particularly over-reliance on them) and the incentives that their use creates. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)