Little scientometrics, big scientometrics... and beyond

Let me start by registering my agreement with Glginzel and Schoepflin's thoughtful and interesting paper. The "diagnosis" of a crisis in bibliometrics and its proposed "treatment" are accurate and perceptive. I would like to take this opportunity in order to elaborate on some of the points raised in the paper and to state a somewhat more blunt view on some of the issues. Starting with point 2 among the causes of the crisis, the main target-group for bibliometric research should be the bibliometricians. There can be no doubt that people from other scientific disciplines are interested in investigating them by using bibliometric tools, but, if indeed bibliometric research is a professional activity, it should be done in cooperation with bibliometricians. Bibliometrics is an interdisciplinary field and therefore bibliometric research should as far as possible, be carried out jointly by bibliometricians and experts in the various disciplines. The main contribution of the bibliometricians in these joint ventures should be their "bag of tools." In consequence, the training of future bibliometricians should emphasize methodology. Also, and even more importantly, a large part of bibliometric research should consist of the examination of bibliometric tools and the formulation and testing of bibliometric hypotheses by bibliometricians and by others. For a young discipline like ours the examination of one's own methods and approaches is a healthy phenomenon; I should be very sorry to see this sort of activity diminish as Glanzel and Schoepflin fear. To be sure, there are good economic reasons for science policy experts to use bibliometrics in their projections and predictions: on the one hand they are expected to make decisions on increasingly complex policy issues and on the other hand they are under pressure because of the diminishing resources allotted to scientific and