“Ambiguity” and scientometric measurement: A dissenting view

Quentin L. Burrell

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2001, vol. 52, issue 12, 1075-1080

Abstract: Abe Bookstein has long been a persuasive advocate of the central role of the classical Lotka‐Bradford‐Zipf “laws” in bibliometrics and, subsequently, scientometrics and informetrics. In a series of often‐quoted papers (Bookstein, 1977, 1990a, 1990b, 1997), he has sought to demonstrate that “Lotka‐type” laws have a unique resilience to various forms of reporting, which leads inevitably and naturally to their observance in empirical informetric data collected under a wide variety of circumstances. A general statement of his position was featured in the recent JASIST Special Topic Issue on Information Science at the Millennium (Bookstein, 2001). We shall argue that there are grounds to dispute some of the logic, the mathematics, and the reality of the development. The contention is on the one hand that Bookstein's development lacks a rigorous mathematical basis, and on the other, that, in general, informetric processes are adequately described within a standard probabilistic framework with stochastic modelling offering the more productive approach.

Date: 2001
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1168

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jamist:v:52:y:2001:i:12:p:1075-1080

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1532-2890

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from Association for Information Science & Technology
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().