Talk:Bibliometrics

[Untitled]

This article looks VERY poorly. Looking through the history of the page, it looks like the last well formatted edit was here, but I'm reluctant to revert it that far back, being as that was in April '05. Comments? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Never mind. 'Twas just corrected. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

-- The entry about Charles Murray's article seems only tangentially relevant. Should this section be deleted?

Yes he is not an relevant in bibliometric research and his article is mentioned out of the blue 80.163.17.92 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

--

Suggest the inclusion of a reference to the 2010 study by Molinie and Bodenhausen as evidence of the possible, and ongoing, negative effects of using bibliometric analysis; doi:10.2533/chimia.2010.78Benloveday (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An excellent starting point for an article on "Bibliometrics" is to my view the groundbreaking work

SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS A 32-Country Comparative Evaluation of Publishing Performance and Citation Impact by Tibor Braun (Hungary), Wolfgang Glänzel (Hungary) & András Schubert (Hungary) World Scientific 1985 ISBN: 978-9971-966-69-0

and the discussion and references (called op.cit. in the following) therein.

This work contains also a disambiguation of the terms "Scientometrics" and "Bibliometrics". On the disambiguation of the more recent fields of "Informetrics", "Webometrics" et al. and the corresponding references I will follow up in a later discussion section.

The work cited above contains the disambiguation of a) descriptive bibliometrics (Lotka op. cit. op. cit., Bradford op. cit., Merton op. cit, Price 1976 op. cit., et al.) b) Scientometrics (Pritchard op. cit., Mulchenko op. cit., Price 1961/1963 op cit. et al.) b) Evaluative Bibliometrics (Merton opera cit, Price 1961/63 opera cit., Price 1976 op. cit., Garfield opera cit., Narin opera cit. et al.)

As the beginning of bibliometrics research and all the following subfields of research I would like to see the groundbreaking article by Alfred J. Lotka:

Lotka, Alfred J. (1926). "The frequency distribution of scientific productivity". Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16 (12): 317–324

QuarkGluon (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Analytics for understanding research

The CETIS Analytics Series ISSN 2051-9214 Vol.1, No. 4 Analytics for Understanding Research By Mark van Harmelen may be useful to this page. I'm not sure whether it belongs on this page, another page or a new page (which could link to Bibliometrics) though. The reports are available http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/c/analytics . Sjgknight (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing merge tag

In reframing the lead (permalink) I've tried to help clarify that a distinction exists between bibliometrics and scientometrics. I've therefore removed the (now rather stale) merge tag. 86.181.67.166 (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More generally. I think the entire page would benefit from refocusing on the broad field of bibliometrics, of which citation analysis (for instance) is one aspect. 86.181.67.166 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)