This study analyzes the level of co-authorship of Spanish research in Library and Information Science (LIS) until 2009, the chronological development that has taken place, and the level of local, domestic and international cooperation. This bibliometric study was made using the data retrieved from the Web of Knowledge (WoK) following a dual strategy—on the one hand through the filter of the category Information Science & Library Science, and on the other hand through a subject search. In this way a significant number of works has been retrieved, some of which are in journals indexed in SCI or A&HCI and not in the SSCI. The results show a significant increase in all co-authorship, including publications in English and those involving international collaboration. As with the increase in Spanish participation in social science (WoK), this growth, coupled with the significant increase in Spanish scientific production in the area of LIS, suggests that the discipline in Spain has entered a more mature phase—although so far it has focused particularly on bibliometric studies.
The intellectual structure and its evolution of library and information science (LIS) in China are analyzed with time series data from Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index which is the properest database for ACA practice in the field of social science at present. The result indicates that the subfields of Library and Information Science in China kept changing from 1998 to 2007: some subfields have emerged and developed a lot, e.g., webometrics and competitive intelligence; some subfields maintain, e.g., bibliometrics and intellectual property; and some subfields have begun to decline, e.g., cataloging. Through the comparison with the international LIS, it is found that there are some unique subfields in Chinese LIS from 1998 to 2007, such as competitive intelligence and intellectual property. At the same time, I also suggest that Chinese authors in LIS should pay more attention to the applied research in the future.
This article examines the incentive structure underlying information transfers received by the three key players of the Triple Helix paradigm: universities, industry, and government research institutes (GRIs). For Korea and Taiwan, which are the cases under analysis here, such an empirical examination has not yet been conducted on a quantitative level. Using a unique dataset of survey responses from a maximum of 325 researchers based in Korean and Taiwanese universities, industry, and GRIs, this article shows that there are some significant differences between and within countries. Most importantly, policy interventions to promote university-industry-GRI interactions impact the degree to which specific information transfers are considered useful. In Korea, formal transfers are emphasized, while both formal and, in particular, informal transfers are emphasized in Taiwan.
We develop a model of scientific creativity and test it in the field of rare diseases. Our model is based on the results of an in-depth case study of the Rett Syndrome. Archival analysis, bibliometric techniques and expert surveys are combined with network analysis to identify the most creative scientists. First, we compare alternative measures of generative and combinatorial creativity. Then, we generalize our results in a stochastic model of socio-semantic network evolution. The model predictions are tested with an extended set of rare diseases. We find that new scientific collaborations among experts in a field enhance combinatorial creativity. Instead, high entry rates of novices are negatively related to generative creativity. By expanding the set of useful concepts, creative scientists gain in centrality. At the same time, by increasing their centrality in the scientific community, scientists can replicate and generalize their results, thus contributing to a scientific paradigm.
This paper provides a first-ever look at differences of centrality scores (i.e., networks) over time and across research specializations in Korea. This is a much needed development, given the variance which is effectively ignored when Science Citation Index (SCI) publications are aggregated. Three quantitative tests are provided—OLS, two sample t-tests, and unit-root tests—to establish the patterns of centrality scores across Korea over time. The unit-root test is particularly important, as it helps identify patterns of convergence in each region's centrality scores. For all other geographic regions besides Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Daejeon, there appears to be little promise—at least in the immediate future—of being network hubs. For these top three regions, though, there is a pattern of convergence in three-quarters of all research specializations, which we attribute in part to policies in the mid- and late-1990s.