Search

Introduction. In the first part of the article, an attempt was made to trace some of the evolution of the concept of a “document”, which is now understood as any material object that can be used to obtain the information necessary for a person. In the second part, assuming that such an interpretation of the concept of a “document” is fruitful for possible reconsideration of viewpoints on the objects of bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics, a number of definitions of the objects of these three “metrices” have been examined with a speculative “inlining” the new meaning of the term “document” to the definitions of objects.Materials and methods. Comparative analysis of the viewpoints of the objects of bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics that were expressed in some examples of definitions of these scientific fields; speculative “inlining” the new meaning of the term “document” in them; consideration the meanings of the objects of “metrices” altered as a result of the mentioned “inlining”.Results. It is shown how noticeably the understanding of the objects of bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics can be revised as the result of the use of the updated “broad” interpretation of the concept of a “document” and how much the interpretations of the objects of bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics can be even closer in their meanings than previously was recognized.Discussion and conclusion. Such a comparative analysis of the objects of the “metrices” might be helpful for identifying both similarities and differences among bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics. This is important, since the awareness of them is an obvious starting point for the mutual enrichment of “metrices” with knowledge and concepts. A more complete and detailed analysis of representations of the objects of the “metrices” in comparison with the updated “broad” interpretation of the concept of the “document”, as well as a comparison of the methodological components of “metrices” is the subject of further research.

Introduction. In the context of methodological problems of bibliometrics, we consider the concept of the object of bibliometrics, viz. a document. In regard with the author’s view that the document is also an integral component of the objects of scientometrics and informetrics, the share of this component being very significant, it seems important to attempt to review some of the evolution that the concept of a “document” has undergone since the dictionary definition of 1975, as the perception of the document as the object of bibliometrics did not incorporate the changes that the concept of a document has undergone irrespectively of its application to “metric” research. Materials and methods. Analytical interpretation of scientific literature, international and national standards, as well as dictionary articles related to this problem. Based on the above interpretation, an attempt to review the evolution of the term “document” has been made. Results. The article traces some of the evolution of the concept of “document” since the dictionary definition of 1975 up to the definition of the international standard of 2017 and the paper by Yu. N. Stolyarov of 2018. Currently, any material object that can be used to obtain the information a person needs may be considered as a document. Discussion and conclusion. This interpretation of the concept of a document, as well as a number of its predecessors, can be fruitful for a possible reconsideration of the concepts of the objects of bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics.

The objective of the present paper was to analyze a number of concepts related to the scientometric method "citation index". Some experts still interpret “negative citations” and “disproportionately large share of self-citations” as “shortcomings” of the “citation index” scientometric method. In the author’s opinion, the reason is an indelible belief in the “normative theory of citation”, which implies a conscious choice of citations, a conscientious selection of the best quality works for the reference-lists, and a “desire to return the intellectual debt” to the cited authors. But there are also new attempts to question the adequacy of the “citation index” method. For example, one of the publications of the year 2020 questions the causal relationship between the citations to the scientific documents and their use, and between their use and their value; the reason why this fundamental pattern is called into question is mainly based on the actions of some people who do not meet ethical standards and may be arbitrarily directed against its manifestation. The mentioned paper claims, in particular, that very common are the following phenomena: deliberate refusal to use the necessary scientific documents; refusal to cite the documents used (including plagiarism and restraint from citing for technical reasons); practice of evaluating little-known and inaccessible documentary sources as not valuable enough (value is confused with quality in this case); fake citing to unread works. The present article refutes the interpretation of these phenomena as indicating the absence of the considered causal relationship and tries to demonstrate that, on the contrary, some of them are involuntary confirmation of the adequacy of the “citation index” method., Метою даної статті був аналіз ряду понять, що відносяться до наукометричного методу «цитат-індекс». Деякі фахівці, як і раніше, вважають «негативне цитування» та «непропорційно велике самоцитування» «недоліками» наукометричного методу «цитат-індекс», що, на погляд автора, свідчить про віру в «нормативну теорію цитування», яка передбачає свідомий вибір посилань, принциповий відбір найбільш якісних робіт для списків цитованих джерел, «бажання повернути інтелектуальний борг» цитованим авторам. Але виникають і нові спроби поставити під сумнів адекватність методу «цитат-індекс». Так, в одній з публікацій 2020 року причинно-наслідковий зв'язок цитованості наукових документів з їх використанням, а використання – з їх цінністю ставиться під сумнів, в основному на тій підставі, що дії деяких людей, які не відповідають етичним нормам, можуть бути довільно спрямовані проти її прояви. Тут мається на увазі, зокрема, такі нібито дуже поширені явища: свідома відмова від використання та цитування необхідного матеріалу; відмова від цитування використаного матеріалу (включаючи і плагіат, і відмову від цитування з технічних причин); практика оцінки маловідомих і недоступних джерел як недостатньо цінних (цінність при цьому переплутана з якістю); виробництво фальшивих посилань на непрочитані роботи. Ця стаття містить спростування точки зору на розглянуті явища як на свідчення відсутності даного причинно-наслідкового зв'язку і вказівка на те, що, навпаки, деякі з них є підтвердженням адекватності методу «цитат-індекс».

The objective of the present paper was to analyze a number of concepts related to the scientometric method "citation index". Some experts still interpret “negative citations” and “disproportionately large share of self-citations” as “shortcomings” of the “citation index” scientometric method. In the author’s opinion, the reason is an indelible belief in the “normative theory of citation”, which implies a conscious choice of citations, a conscientious selection of the best quality works for the reference-lists, and a “desire to return the intellectual debt” to the cited authors. But there are also new attempts to question the adequacy of the “citation index” method. For example, one of the publications of the year 2020 questions the causal relationship between the citations to the scientific documents and their use, and between their use and their value; the reason why this fundamental pattern is called into question is mainly based on the actions of some people who do not meet ethical standards and may be arbitrarily directed against its manifestation. The mentioned paper claims, in particular, that very common are the following phenomena: deliberate refusal to use the necessary scientific documents; refusal to cite the documents used (including plagiarism and restraint from citing for technical reasons); practice of evaluating little-known and inaccessible documentary sources as not valuable enough (value is confused with quality in this case); fake citing to unread works. The present article refutes the interpretation of these phenomena as indicating the absence of the considered causal relationship and tries to demonstrate that, on the contrary, some of them are involuntary confirmation of the adequacy of the “citation index” method.&nbsp