In the present stage of Scientometricsindicators published are mostlyincomparable, which fact impedes the development of the field and makes the users of scientometric results mistrustful. Consequently, standardization of data, methods, indicators and their presentation is urgently needed. For instance, the time periods applied should be standardized across fields and subfields in calculating citation and publication indicators.
Chances for information to be cited (CC) depend on disciplines and topics because of different publication and referencing practices. However, the developmental rate of knowledge strongly influences CC as well. By a simple model it has been concluded that CC are the greater the faster the publication rate.
A model experiment is presented for thequantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators used in evaluating the scientific impact of papers. The Relative Subfield Citedness (Rw) indicator proved to be the most appropriate according to the criteria chosen. RW increases with the number of citations to the papers and, in contrast to other relative impact indicators, does not decrease if an author chooses to publish most of his papers in journals with large impact factors or if most of the citations to his papers are to the ones in journals with the largest impact factors.
Communication is essential in scientific research. Scientific papers represent the main information sources in natural sciences. A model of theManifested Communication through Publications is introduced which makes it possible to calculate indicators characteristic of bilateral information processes.Bilateral Coupling is for example the total number of non-zero cross elements in the information matrix containing references to each other's papers of the two teams.
At the end of my paper let me recall the statement made in my referee's report: Evaluation of persons by scientometric methods is a complex endeavour and needs more precaution than that of teams or countries. I do believe, however, that in the not too far future more quantitative data and indicators will be used in evaluation processes of any kind than at present. But even the best computers need software.Nevertheless, I have to admit that scientometry badly needs a general theory and standardized methods for the quantitative evaluation of various aspects of science and scientists.
Differences in size, mean number of references per paper in journals, ageing of information and disciplinarity of some subfields in chemistry were studied in order to explain different average impact factors for journals. A new indicator —Standard Journal Impact — is suggested, which may be used as a standardized (i.e. comparable) impact indicator for journals in different subfields. The main reason for the lower impact factor for journals of the macromolecular chemistry subfield may be the lower extent of the application of their results by other subfields.
Simple relations were found between Relative Citation Rate (RCR), Relative Subfield Citedness (Rw) and Subfield Publication Strategy (PS) indicators. The Rw indicator is supposed to be more characteristic of the international scientific impact of papers than RCR using mean citation rate of journals representing the respective subfield, as standard.
50 pharmaceutical patents granted to firms, residing in US, GB, DE and HU each, were surveyed and the average numbers of scientific as well as patent itemsReferenced by the inventors were calculated. The sum of impact factors of the journals referenced (Total Weighted Impact) was calculated by scientific fields. About 50–60 per cent of scientific information referred to in the patents was found to originate from Life Sciences journals. It was found that 10 per cent of the journals referenced contained 55 per cent of the papers.