>>The search was on two words : "powder" AND "diffraction", occuring
>>either in the title or in the abstract, or in the keywords, or somewhere.
>
>Seems a pretty restrictive criterion, and likely to favour papers on technique rather
>than science (though I note that Rietveld's paper's do not qualify by your criterion
>:-)
Yes, powder diffraction is a technique. So, do you put Hugo's paper
among papers on technique rather than papers on science ?-). His
papers do not qualify because they are anterior to 1975. Nevertheless,
it is true that both words "powder" and "diffraction" do not appear
simultaneously in the abstract nor in the title for the 1969 paper, but
they do in the 1967 paper title (which would have qualified if the WoS
was not starting in 1975).
Science or technique is a distinction to be more discussed. Improving
a technique is sometimes done by science. Birth of a new technique is
frequently due to science. Is characterizing a superconductor by a
technique new science ? We are starting an interesting discussion.
I believe I have made really new (small) science only 2 or 3 times in
my whole life ;-).
Best regards,
Armel
