I am indebted to the UK Economic and Social Research Council for support through the Science Policy and Research Evaluation group at SPRU. I should also like to thank Paul Bourke, John Irvine, Ben Martin and Keith Pavitt for comments on earlier drafts.

1. D. Hicks, `Limitations of Co-Citation Analysis as a Tool for Science Policy,' Social Studies of Science, Vol. 17 (1987), 295-316.

2. J. J. Franklin, `Testing and Using Quantitative Methods in Science Policy Contexts', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18 (1988), 365-74.

3. Ibid., 370.

4. Ibid., 372.

5. B. Latour, Science in Action (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987).

6. Franklin, op. cit. note 2, 366.

7. Ibid.

8. Hicks, op. cit. note 1, 304.

9. S. Woolgar, `Irony in the Social Study of Science', in K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 240.

10. Franklin, op. cit. note 2, 366.

11. D. Sullivan, D. H. White and E. J. Barboni, `Co-citation Analyses of Science: An Evaluation', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 7 (1977), 223-40.

12. Franklin, op. cit. note 2, 368.

13. H. R. Coward, J.J. Franklin and L. Simon, ABRC Science Policy Study: Co-Citation Bibliometric Models, Final Report to the Advisory Board to the Research Councils of the United Kingdom (Philadelphia, PA: Centre for Research Planning, July 1984), 156.

14. J. E. J. Oberski, `Co-citation Analysis and Dutch Physics', to be published in A. F. J. Van Raan, Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987-88).

15. P. Healey, H. Rothman and P. K. Hoch, `An Experiment in Science Mapping for Research Planning', Research Policy, Vol. 15 (1986), 243.

16. Ibid., 242.

17. G. A. Tyson, `Why People Perceive Horoscopes as Being True: A Review', Bulletin of The British Psychological Society, Vol. 35 (1982), 187.

18. Ibid., 186.

19. Ibid., 187.

20. Ibid.

21. Coward et al., op. cit. note 13.

22. SPRU, Success and Failure in Industrial Innovation (London: Centre for the Study of Industrial Innovation, 1972).

23. Franklin, op. cit. note 2, 367, emphasis in original.

Limitations and More Limitations of Co-Citation Analysis/Bibliometric Modelling: A Reply to Franklin

Abstract

Get full access to this article