Quantity and quality are Aristotelian categories. Ever since Galileo, the defining feature of Science is the accurate measure of quantity, e.g., time, length and mass, to begin with. Length and mass are size dependent. Quality remained an elusive category as it is a size-independent feature. It was Archimedes who first brought a revolution in physics by defining density as a size-independent attribute. A similar revolution was effected in the measurement of science when Eugene Garfield introduced the concept of the citation as a unit of measurement and from this, separated quantity (number of publications) from quality (impact). In this article, we interpret impact as a thermodynamic mean instead of a simplistic arithmetic mean. This opens up rich analogies with the conservation laws of mechanics and thermodynamic features linking disorder and unevenness to entropy. Also as in physics, considerations of dimensional homogeneity play a defining role. Without Garfield’s bold initiative, all this will have eluded us for some time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Abbas, A. M. (2011). Analysis of generalized impact factor and indices of journals. Journal of Information Processing Systems,7, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbas, A. M. (2012). Bounds and inequalities relating h-index, g-index, e-index and generalized impact factor: An improvement over existing models. PLoS ONE,7, e33699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensman, S. J. (2013). Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine. arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR].
Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News,68(5), 314–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom, C. T., West, J. D., & Wiseman, M. A. (2008). The Eigenfactor metrics. Journal of Neuroscience,28(45), 11433–11434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal Status. Scientometrics,69(3), 669–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989). World flash on basic research. Scientometrics,15(1–2), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics,69(1), 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems,30(1–7), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, S. R. (2004). On the concepts of quantity and quality in the history of western thought. In Philosophical Studies in Education SIG at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
Davis, P. M. (2008). Eigenfactor: Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better estimates than raw citation counts? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(13), 2186–2188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the Science citation index to cybermetrics. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press Incorporated.Google Scholar
De Visscher, A. (2011). What does the g-index really measure? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(11), 2290–2293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2010). Criticism on the hg-index. Scientometrics,82(2), 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science,122(3159), 108–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glänzel, W. (2006). On the h-index—A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. Scientometrics,67(2), 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s research output. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS),102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). Integrated impact indicators (I3) compared with impact factors (IFs): An alternative design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(11), 2133–2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management,12(5), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar