Since Scientometrics has come to the scene of academic circles, the pundits have always had dispute for selecting an appropriate title for the academic field. So the use of various names, especially in the first two decades of the emergence of this field, has aroused the curiosity of any scholar.  However, studies suggest that these disagreements are based on the importance of picking the most suitable title that can perfectly describe and introduce scientific functions to the scientific society; rather than its view in this field or due to the differences of the concept that the pioneers of this field might consider. what these divergences reflect are the importance of picking the most suitable title that can perfectly describe and introduce scientific functions .Therefore, the important point to consider is that the dispute took place due to the name selection is not because of the differences in attitudes, but it is because of the key role that an specific title can play in promoting scientific functions. In this regard, the fundamental scientific evidence shows that the functions did not differ even among the founders and scholars who called it by some different names, and all of them acknowledge that it acts as the backbone of policy, science and technology planning. As far as considering this purpose as the streamline of investigations and activities, the victory is quite possible to be achieved.
Due to all these facts, the title of the field has no application but the promotion of the functions. Thus, it can be understood that the main functions of a filed are not determined solely by their titles but by the talents, abilities, creativities and the services on the side of the scholars and experts of the field. In my own perspective, the title of a filed is determined by issues relevant to the time issues and the existing factors based on the degree of attraction and impression based on  the audiences accept it or not.  That is why the term “Scientometrics” could primarily find its way to the scientific fields more than the terms “science of science” and “evaluative bibliometrics”. What mainly matters today is not what to call Scientometrics? “Science of science” or “evaluative bibliometrics”?   

 

 
What has gained the most significance nowadays is how to take steps for being effective in promoting the relevant functions with the main purposes of Scientometrics. Or in other words, how is it possible to be effective on the way to developing related functions in Scientometrics' main goals, which are to present a beneficial and evaluative analysis of science, technology, and innovation for supporting policymakers and planners?  And to what extent are we involved in this process?