(Donath et al 1999 ; Welser et al 2007 ; Xiong and Donath, 1999 ) and begins the work of mapping the emerging field of ScienceofScience and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) research by combining traditional bibliometric methods with content analysis of a
Nalimov's relations with Polish scientists date from the sixties. He was present in Polish science owing to his publication
— also specially prepared for Polish journals — and for his participation in Polish-Soviet science of science conferences
organized alternately in Poland and in (of that time) Soviet Union. He had a high opinion — which he many times expressed
— on contemporary condition of Polish science of science as well as on its previous achievements. In such opinion he was not
isolated; also John Bernal and Derek de Solla Price referred in their papers to precursory statements of Maria and Stanisław
Ossowski formulating already in the thirties of XX century progressive programme for science of science research. Ten years
earlier a similar views upon science presented world-famous Polish sociologist Florian Znaniecki. So, in the first part of
the paper a common way of thinking and approaching science of science basic problems in Ossowski's, Znaniecki's and Nalimov's
works is presented. In the second part the direct contacts of Nalimov with Polish science of science researchers widely described
and commentated in Polish journals are discussed. At least using citation analysis the influence of Nalimov's ideas on science
of science and scientometrics in Poland is presented. As a base to citation analysis the journal Problems of the Science of Science (1965–1999) and monographs devoted to scientometrics, bibliometrics and informetrics were taken.
As the joint initiative of German trade and industry for the promotion of science, theStifterverband is interested in an efficient and transparent system of science and its promotion. This requires knowledge and insights which are provided by scientific research. Hence, research in the field of science of science is always, implicitly or explicitly, the object of the promotional endeavours of theStifterverband.
Authors:Katy Börner, Weixia Huang, Micah Linnemeier, Russell Duhon, Patrick Phillips, Nianli Ma, Angela Zoss, Hanning Guo, and Mark Price
The enormous increase in digital scholarly data and computing power combined with recent advances in text mining, linguistics,
network science, and scientometrics make it possible to scientifically study the structure and evolution of science on a large
scale. This paper discusses the challenges of this ‘BIG science of science’—also called ‘computational scientometrics’ research—in
terms of data access, algorithm scalability, repeatability, as well as result communication and interpretation. It then introduces
two infrastructures: (1) the Scholarly Database (SDB) (http://sdb.slis.indiana.edu), which provides free online access to 22 million scholarly records—papers, patents, and funding awards which can be cross-searched
and downloaded as dumps, and (2) Scientometrics-relevant plug-ins of the open-source Network Workbench (NWB) Tool (http://nwb.slis.indiana.edu). The utility of these infrastructures is then exemplarily demonstrated in three studies: a comparison of the funding portfolios
and co-investigator networks of different universities, an examination of paper-citation and co-author networks of major network
science researchers, and an analysis of topic bursts in streams of text. The article concludes with a discussion of related
work that aims to provide practically useful and theoretically grounded cyberinfrastructure in support of computational scientometrics
research, education and practice.
The methodology of the science of science is claimed to be plagued by one-dimensional thinking, and it is urged that a multi-dimensional view be adopted instead. In a one-dimensional model cause is a meaningful word, superlatives can be used, dichotomous thinking is realistic, with a resultant zero-sum mentality, and the make a hypothesis-find a correlation method makes sense. In the multidimensional framework these four characteristics are unsuitable, and instead a quite different set of questions arise as appropriate. This is illustrated on five examples taken from among currently interesting questions in the science of science. Following some remarks about simplicity and about the role and limitations of multiple regression analyses, it is concluded that, among other things, more purely phenomenological studies are needed to make progress in the science of science.
Reflecting onMoravcsik's paper and his assertion that a damaging dominant one-dimensionalism prevails within the science of science, one can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, the one-dimensionalism described byMoravcsik is a misrepresentation of a great deal of useful and valid scientometric research. This work is not so methodologically or theoretically naive asMoravcsik seeks to suggest, nor is it so uniform. Secondly,Moravcsik's assertion that there is little multidimensional work being carried out overlooks the considerable body of such research being published in the sociology of science. Thirdly, the sociology of science is but one sub-field of the science of science, and each such sub-field is characterized by its own sets of objectives and resource constraints. The nature of these objectives and constraints determines the relative suitability of particular methodologies and the optimal mix of methodologies. This in turn influences the relative frequency of adoption of those approaches which can be described as either one- or multidimensional. The result is that contrary to Moravcsik's assertions, a methodological pluralism already exists; a methodological pluralism which should be recognised as a natural consequence of the diversity of research objectives and constraints which characterize the science of science, as well as the wide range of disciplinary backgrounds of those who work within it.As the science of science has itself shown, discussion of cognitive content should not be totally divorced from consideration of social context.
The following is a review of scientometric investigations in the USSR. Scientometrics has been taken in the rigorous sense of the term, defined as an approach of the science of science which attempts to measure sciencereproducibly. The state of scientometric research in the Soviet Union is compared to that of other countries.
The paper briefly outlines the contributions made by V.V. Nalimov to the development of science of science, scientometrics,
and information science, especially during his career in VINITI. It also brings attention to his main achievements in philosophy,
linguistics, and other branches of modern science.
It is shown that in natural sciences, interdependences between variables are determined regardless of the distributions of variable values, whereas in science studies, distributions should be used as a starting point. This difference is due the nature of measuring instruments: in natural sciences, measurements are performed with the use of devices, while science of science uses human devices adapting themselves to the measured objects. Practical inferences are drawn.