Of the many excellent points raised in Glginzel and Schoepflin's paper, perhaps the most fundamental concerns the conceptualization and subsequent definition of the young discipline they mention in the introduction as incorporating bibliometrics, informetrics and scientometrics. They fail, however, to propose a name for this young discipline and give it, once and for all, a definite identity. When they state, in a later part of the paper, that bibliometricians (taken by these authors to include bibliometricians, informetricians, scientometricians and technometricians) should feel themselves responsible for the field of bibliometrics as a whole which includes all quantitative aspects and models o f science communication, storage, dissemination and retrieval o f scientific information, they are referring to acti~4ties which correspond more correctly to the broader field of scientometrics. Notwithstanding that scientometrics is the main area for the application of informetric and bibliometric techniques, it is, by no means, the only one. At a recent round table discussion in Mexico, it was suggested that scientometrics should be separated from both bibliometrics and informetrics as it is concerned with quantitative aspects of a well-defined field of study. Informetrics, and bibliometrics as a subfield of informetrics, on the other hand, have a role to play in the quantitative measurement of activities and processes in all fields of human endeavour, not just in science. It seems, therefore, that the consensus reached at earlier meetings of specialists in the area that informetrics was to be the major field is once again under discussion. The paper does little to dispel existing confusion as to the basic principles, scope and actions of the three specialities, and, perhaps more importantly, the inter-relationship between the three.