Dear Colleague,

since years I am following these kind of questions. It seem to be not easy to get reliable data in this field of scientometrics. All the numbers recorded to get information about citation, distribution of information in sciences, the invention of journals impact factor, the h-number and all others are questionable. What are the criteria for collecting data? Who is collecting the data? Why some sources are not included in the list of journals or books and why others are included from which data are taken? All these seem to be only semi-transparent. Therefore, I decided to regard all these results presented by the different sources as a kind of barometer only. Statistics based on a non-complete data set. A set showing a high uncertainty… Who is interested in this information? Only scientist?

The end of my contribution DOI: 10.1002/9780470027318.a9507 / Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry Is the result of looking scientometrics.

10.1 Reality The general situation of scientists including the analytical chemist today is that the lawyers, managers, and administrators try to condense, optimize, and guide sciences (and scientists) to obtain a profitable factory. They try to quantify scientific output and innovation. They try to get knowledge about creativity and will force to publish the output in high-impact journals. That is in my eyes the wrong way to proceed. Good sciences need creativity, time, and freedom. All three pillars together we are missing more and more. Furthermore, exactly these three pillars we had with some dark interruptions in Europe for the past 500 years. Therefore, I would like to appeal and encourage all analytical chemists continuing to collect deep knowledge about stuff and if possible to condense their knowledge and experience in an essay beyond chemistry.

Close this book, look at the sky and wonder about the immensity and beauty of the universe.

Alex

Many thanks for your answer. It is much more general and deeper than I was expecting. I am completely agree with it.

I wanted just to draw attention on the incorrect functioning of statistic counters in RG that, is or could be an alternative or at least a corrective to different "usual" or "official" media serving to all possible purpoases out of the real science and scientists.

It is difficult to know how the numbers of readers, other than recommenders, can be assessed but the regurgitation of previous and old questions surely is due to 1) similar questions being asked and 2)sufficient interest being displayed in either question or author.