Bibliometrics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. Library Trends VOLUME 30 NUMBER 1 SUMMER 1981 University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science This Page Intentionally Left Blank Bibliometrics WILLIAM GRAY POTTER Issue Editor CONTENTS Charles H. Davis 3 FOREWORD William Gray Potter 5 INTRODUCTION Daniel 0. O’Connor 9 EMPIRICAL LAWS, THEORY CON- Henry Voos STRUCTION AND BIBLIOMETRICS William Gray Potter 21 LOTKA’S LAW REVISITED M. Carl Drott 41 BRADFORD’S LAW: THEORY, EMPIRICISM AND THE GAPS BETWEEN Ronald E. Wyllys 53 EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL BASES OF ZIPF’S LAW John J. Hubert 65 GENERAL BIBLIOMETRIC MODELS Linda C. Smith 83 CITATION ANALYSIS D. Kaye Gapen 107 OBSOLESCENCE Sigrid P. Milner Jean Tague 125 THE LAW OF EXPONENTIAL Jamshid Beheshti GROWTH: EVIDENCE, IMPLI- Lorna Rees-Potter CATIONS AND FORECASTS Alvin M. Schrader 151 TEACHING BIBLIOMETRICS This Page Intentionally Left Blank Foreword MOREMATHEMATICAL THAN MOST, this issue of Library Trends takes a fresh look at bibliometrics. In choosing both the issue editor and the contributors, we have deliberately selected individuals who can provide a new perspective. Additionally, a mix has been sought so that both theory and potential practical applications would be addressed. Our purpose is to stimulate greater interest in bibliometrics, while also making the subject more accessible to a wider audience, including students. Future issues will continue to address topics in information scienceaswell as traditional aspects of librarianship. On the chance that instructors in library and information science might find this particular issue of value in the classroom, we have extended the print run and would like to take this opportunity to invite special orders from educators. CHARLESH. DAVIS Editor SUMMER 1981 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Introduction WILLIAM GRAY POTTER BIBLIOMETRICSIS, simply put, the study and measurement of the publi- cation patterns of all forms of written communication and their authors. Though the word is of recent coinage,’ the practice goes back at least to the 1920s.’ There has been a great increase in the number of publications in bibliometrics over the past two decades. This increase has not been accompanied by critical analyses of the field and of the direction of bibliometrics in general. The purpose of this issue of Library Trends is to provide analyses of the major concepts of bibliometrics and to indi- cate its present and future directions. An effort has been made to make the articles in this issue understandable to persons new to the topic without depriving those readers already initiated into the mysteries of bibliometrics of new insights and a measureof controversy. The authors of these articles are knowledgeable in their topics, but, with a few exceptions, are not usually associated with bibliometrics. These authors were chosen to bring some new names and, it is hoped, new ideas to the literature. In a general introduction to bibliometrics, Daniel O’Connor and Henry Voos argue that because bibliometrics has largely been used only to describe bibliographic phenomena, and is not yet able to explain or predict these phenomena, it is merely a method, not a theory. They state that if bibliometrics is to attain the status ofa theory, to beable to predict and explain, and, thus, to become more useful, researchers must concen- trate on the causal factors underlying bibliographic phenomena. William Gray Potter is Acquisitions Librarian, University of Illinois at lirbana- Champaign. SUMMER 1981 5 WILLIAM POTTER The next four articles deal with the three major “laws” of bibliometrics-Lotka’s law, Bradford’s law, and Zipf’s law-and with attempts to unify these individual laws under one general distribution. William Potter provides a bibliographic history of Lotka’s law and its application. M. Carl Drott examines Bradford’s law and concludes that more work is needed in exploring the underlying causes behind Brad- ford’s observations. Ronald E. Wyllys provides a discussion of the origins of Zipf’s law, with some interesting observations on the charac- ter and context of Zipf himself. John J. Hubert examines efforts to join the laws of Lotka, Bradford and Zipf into one unified, general model. While he finds these attempts statistically sound, Hubert faults them for being too simple, usually with only one dependent variable, and points to research that attempts to account for more variables and which may provide more accurate, predictive and useful models. Citation analysis is perhaps the most written-about topic in biblio- metrics. Linda C. Smith provides an extensive review of the literature and discusses the practical applications of citation analysis. The rate at which literature becomes obsolete is of interest to both the information scientist studying the evolution of disciplines and to practicing librarians concerned with collection management. D. Kaye Gapen and Sigrid P. Milner have prepared a detailed review of research in obsolescence. There has been exponential growth in the number of publications and it is widely believed that knowledge is also growing, though not at the same rate as publications. Jean Tague, Jamshid Beheshti and Lorna Rees-Potter discuss the relationship between the growth of literature and the growth of knowledge. Throughout the articles in this issue, there is a recurring theme which, in essence, says that the traditional bibliometric models and distributions are too simple to reflect reality accurately. To be useful, bibliometrics must be able to explain and predict phenomena, not just to describe them. To do this, more complex models are needed. The problem is that bibliometrics is already thought too difficult and out of the reach of most librarians and information scientists. One possible solution is to incorporate bibliometrics into library and information science curricula. Alvin M. Schrader discusses how a course on biblio- metrics might be taught and provides a sample syllabus. In addition to the contributors, I would like to credit the following people for their contributions to this issue: Charles Davis for his encour- agement and guidance; Michael Gorman, Bernard Hurley, Rebecca Lenzini, Daniel O’Connor, and Charlene Renner for their editorial 6 LIBRARY TRENDS Introduction advice and assistance;Wendy Darre and Lisa Olson for their willingness to type and retype seemingly endless tables and bibliographies; and, finally, to the editorial staff of Library Trends for their usual excellent job. References 1. Pritchard, Alan. “Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics?” Journal of Documentation 24 (Dec. 1969):348-49. 2. Hulme, E. Wyndham. Stafzstzcal Bibliography in Relation to the Growth of Modern Ctvrlization. London: 1923. SUMMER 1981 7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Empirical Laws, Theory Construction and Bibliometrics DANIEL 0. O’CONNOR HENRY VOOS BIBLIOMETRICSHAS COMMANDED the attention of numerous individuals in library and information science. The measurement of bibliographic information offers the promise of providing a theory that will resolve many practical problems. It is claimed that patterns of author produc- tivity, literature growth rates and related statistical distributions can be used to evaluate authors, assess disciplines and manage collections. Yet, it is unclear if bibliometrics is merely a method or if it meets the test of a theory in its ability to explain and predict phenomena. This paper examines the properties of bibliometric distributions in a nontechnical manner. Twelve years ago, Pritchard coined the term bzblzornetrzcs and definedit as “the application of mathematics and statistical methods to books and other media of communication.”’ Its purpose was: 1. To shed light on the processes of written communication and of the nature and course of development of a discipline (in sofar as this is displayed through written communication), by means of counting and analyzing the various facets of written communication ...; 2. The assembling and interpretation of statistics relating to books and periodicals ...to demonstrate historical movements, to determine the national or universal research of books and journals, and to ascertain in many local situations the general use of books and journals2 Daniel 0.OConnor is Assistant Professor, and Henry Voos is Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Studies, Rutgers University. New Brunswick, New Jersey. SUMMER 1981 9 DANIEL O’CONNOR & HENRY voos Both of these purposes emphasize that bibliometrics is primarily a method. The scope of bibliometrics includes studying the relationship within a literature (e.g., citation studies) or describing a literat~re.~ Typically, these descriptions focus on consistent patterns involving authors, monographs, journals, or SubjectAanguage. The literature of bibliometrics is growing rapidly and a recent bibliography lists 2032 entrie~,~while another announced bibliography has 600 entries cover- ing the years 1874 through 1959.5 Two concerns have occupied much of the bibliometric literature: an emphasis on mathematical or statistical methods, and a search for theoretical propositions. Fairthorne, Price and Bookstein have stated that there is great consistency among the various bibliometric distribu- tions6 The Bradford, Lotka and Zipf distributions are considered the basic laws of bibliometrics,’ and each of these distributions was empiri- cally derived. The distributions