Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 2384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=2384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 2384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2384)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.01146159 = product of:
  0.04584636 = sum of:
    0.04584636 = weight(_text_:evolution in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04584636 = score(doc=610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose This study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011-2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006-2010 through 2011-2015 to 2016-2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field. Design/methodology/approach The well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011-2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor. Findings The two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011-2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016-2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016-2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011-2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016-2020. Originality/value Author co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.