Search (1373 results, page 1 of 69)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997) 0.07 
    0.06845162 = sum of:
  0.024812903 = product of:
    0.14887741 = sum of:
      0.14887741 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14887741 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.7402591 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.043638717 = sum of:
    0.007776308 = weight(_text_:a in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007776308 = score(doc=853,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
    0.03586241 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03586241 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a bibliometric study of the authorship characteristics of articles published in 4 major information science periodicals: JASIS, Information technology and libraries, Journal of information science, and Program. The aim was to determine the details of their authors, such as: sex, occupation, affiliation, geographic distribution, and institutional affiliation. A total of 163 articles published in 1993 and written by 294 authors were analyzed. Results indicate that: men (206 or 70%) publish 3.0 times more articles than women (69 or 23,5%). Schools of library and information science contributed the most authors. The majority of authors came from the USA (148 or 50,3%), with the Midwest region claiming the largest share (110 or 25,0%). Academic libraries (110 or 37,4%) account for the major share of library publication. 12 schools of library and information science, in the USA, contributed 32 authors (50,0%) and assistant professors (25 or 39,1%) publish the most in these library schools. Male school of library and information science authors publish 1,6 times more than their female counterparts
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23
    Type
    a
  2. Avramescu, A.: Teoria difuziei informatiei stiintifice (1997) 0.07 
    0.06640973 = sum of:
  0.016713358 = product of:
    0.10028015 = sum of:
      0.10028015 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10028015 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.04969637 = sum of:
    0.007856894 = weight(_text_:a in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007856894 = score(doc=3030,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
    0.041839477 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041839477 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
    Abstract
    The theory of diffusion can be successfully applied to scientific information dissemination by identifying space with a series of successive authors, and potential (temperature) with the interest of new authors towards earlier published papers, measured by the number of citations. As the total number of citation equals the number of references, the conservation law is fulfilled and Fourier's parabolic differential equation can be applied
    Date
    22. 2.1999 16:16:11
    Type
    a
  3. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.06 
    0.064130545 = sum of:
  0.014621145 = product of:
    0.08772687 = sum of:
      0.08772687 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08772687 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.0495094 = sum of:
    0.0072451476 = weight(_text_:a in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072451476 = score(doc=2590,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.042264253 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042264253 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
    Type
    a
  4. Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998) 0.06 
    0.06336565 = sum of:
  0.014621145 = product of:
    0.08772687 = sum of:
      0.08772687 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08772687 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.048744507 = sum of:
    0.006480256 = weight(_text_:a in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006480256 = score(doc=2808,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.042264253 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042264253 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    Abstract
    Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish
    Date
    30. 1.1999 17:22:22
    Type
    a
  5. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.06 
    0.061852604 = sum of:
  0.014325736 = product of:
    0.08595441 = sum of:
      0.08595441 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08595441 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.04752687 = sum of:
    0.011664462 = weight(_text_:a in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011664462 = score(doc=2751,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.03586241 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03586241 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    Abstract
    Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:05:07
    Type
    a
  6. Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018) 0.06 
    0.061698228 = sum of:
  0.023876227 = product of:
    0.14325736 = sum of:
      0.14325736 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14325736 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.037822 = sum of:
    0.007936661 = weight(_text_:a in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007936661 = score(doc=4150,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.02988534 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02988534 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    Abstract
    The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22
    Type
    a
  7. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.06 
    0.06014226 = sum of:
  0.017545372 = product of:
    0.10527223 = sum of:
      0.10527223 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10527223 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.042596888 = sum of:
    0.0067344806 = weight(_text_:a in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067344806 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.03586241 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03586241 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    Abstract
    Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.
    Date
    28. 9.2010 12:54:22
    Type
    a
  8. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.06 
    0.058193784 = sum of:
  0.011818129 = product of:
    0.07090877 = sum of:
      0.07090877 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07090877 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.046375655 = sum of:
    0.0045361794 = weight(_text_:a in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045361794 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.041839477 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041839477 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
    Type
    a
  9. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.06 
    0.05796445 = sum of:
  0.014325736 = product of:
    0.08595441 = sum of:
      0.08595441 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08595441 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.043638717 = sum of:
    0.007776308 = weight(_text_:a in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007776308 = score(doc=918,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.03586241 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03586241 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    Abstract
    To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:14
    Type
    a
  10. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.05 
    0.05300075 = product of:
  0.1060015 = sum of:
    0.1060015 = sum of:
      0.0103684105 = weight(_text_:a in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0103684105 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.09563309 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09563309 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
    Type
    a
  11. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.05 
    0.05300075 = product of:
  0.1060015 = sum of:
    0.1060015 = sum of:
      0.0103684105 = weight(_text_:a in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0103684105 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.09563309 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09563309 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Type
    a
  12. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.05 
    0.05300075 = product of:
  0.1060015 = sum of:
    0.1060015 = sum of:
      0.0103684105 = weight(_text_:a in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0103684105 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.09563309 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09563309 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
    Type
    a
  13. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.05 
    0.052726712 = sum of:
  0.010129825 = product of:
    0.06077895 = sum of:
      0.06077895 = weight(_text_:authors in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06077895 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.042596888 = sum of:
    0.0067344806 = weight(_text_:a in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067344806 = score(doc=201,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.03586241 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03586241 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
    Type
    a
  14. Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006) 0.05 
    0.049073152 = sum of:
  0.008441521 = product of:
    0.050649125 = sum of:
      0.050649125 = weight(_text_:authors in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050649125 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.04063163 = sum of:
    0.010746291 = weight(_text_:a in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010746291 = score(doc=5272,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    0.02988534 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02988534 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    Abstract
    This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:11:05
    Type
    a
  15. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.05 
    0.048254605 = product of:
  0.09650921 = sum of:
    0.09650921 = sum of:
      0.012830255 = weight(_text_:a in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012830255 = score(doc=6902,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.08367895 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08367895 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
    Type
    a
  16. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.05 
    0.048254605 = product of:
  0.09650921 = sum of:
    0.09650921 = sum of:
      0.012830255 = weight(_text_:a in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012830255 = score(doc=4689,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.08367895 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08367895 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
    Type
    a
  17. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.05 
    0.04787632 = product of:
  0.09575264 = sum of:
    0.09575264 = sum of:
      0.011224135 = weight(_text_:a in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011224135 = score(doc=3690,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.084528506 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084528506 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Derives a 'literature variable exponential growth model' from Price's literature growth model. The research shows that the new model is more convincing than the former ones. Gives detailed calculation procedure, examples, parameter values and mean square errors
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
    Type
    a
  18. Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012) 0.05 
    0.047435522 = sum of:
  0.011938114 = product of:
    0.07162868 = sum of:
      0.07162868 = weight(_text_:authors in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07162868 = score(doc=4959,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.03549741 = sum of:
    0.0056120674 = weight(_text_:a in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0056120674 = score(doc=4959,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.02988534 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02988534 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    Abstract
    This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
    Type
    a
  19. Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018) 0.05 
    0.047308266 = sum of:
  0.016541936 = product of:
    0.099251606 = sum of:
      0.099251606 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.099251606 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.03076633 = sum of:
    0.006858059 = weight(_text_:a in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006858059 = score(doc=4633,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.023908272 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023908272 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  20. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.05 
    0.046263523 = sum of:
  0.008441521 = product of:
    0.050649125 = sum of:
      0.050649125 = weight(_text_:authors in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050649125 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20111527 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0441157 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.037822 = sum of:
    0.007936661 = weight(_text_:a in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007936661 = score(doc=998,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.050867476 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.02988534 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02988534 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15448566 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0441157 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    Abstract
    The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 1350
  • el 21
  • m 12
  • s 8
  • r 2
  • b 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications