Dear Dr. Jie Li!

The interpretation of “scientometrics is not the science of sciences but a science on science for science” (From Peter Vinkler, 05-07-2024).

“Science of science” – it is a term which may be understood as an exclusive body of knowledge or organization within all sciences. Earlier in the history of science in Europe there were theories considering the central role one of the disciplines. “Central role” may mean that methods, general views, laws, ethics, etc. of this “superior” science branch should be followed and applied by other disciplines. As central discipline e.g. theology later or paralell phylosophy was accepted in the middle ages. Some theorists would think that there may exist some hierarchy among the disciplines also in natural sciences. In the ancient times astronomy later iatrochemistry, then alchemie was accepted as such a field. In the 19^th century chemistry and from the end of the century physics, and from the middle of 20 century: biology. According to the view of several scientists – following Kant – a discipline may be the more exact the more mathematics it applies. I wanted to state that scientometrics should not be seen as a discipline superior to other disciplines. (Which may be concluded from the English phrase: “science of ”; other wise, it may be understood also as “a science from sciences”). It has no central role in the development of science. Its methods do not serve as models for another disciplines. In contrast, in my view: scientometrics is a discipline on each aspects of science, which do not belong to the scope of specific scientific branches. Its object is science as a whole and parts of it. I could not tell here in details that scientometrics deals primarily with the characteristics of information production, spread and impact, and it applies (mainly) quantitative methods.

And, last but not least: the activity of scientometrics should not be done as l’art pour l’art, i.e. for its own sake. Scientometrics should yield useful information for any discipline of science and also for the practical science policy on local and on country level or on discipline and field level, and on world scale. I think, the aboves are the most important reasons for writing the mentioned “bon mot”.

Best regards, Peter Vinkler