Informationscience (IS) and library science (LS) are two interrelated disciplines which both address issues related to information. In response to the impact of information technology, the discipline of LS has
The method of co-citation analysis is used to build citation networks in information science. As data base the first 13 volumes (1961–1973) of the leading Soviet journal in the field (Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya) were used. The results reveal the topical structure of information science, the communities of authors and the names of single leading scientists. The evaluation of scientists' work is based on two measures: productivity (with or without co-authorship) and popularity (popularity of authors and popularity of papers).
As is well-accepted, informationscience is an interdisciplinary science evolving from the interaction of many other disciplines. Borko ( 1968 ) defined that informationscience is “a discipline that investigates
still others have suggested that this phenomenon only appears in certain experimental sciences (Franceschet and Costantini 2010 ). The debate has also taken place in the specific field of Library and InformationScience (LIS) (Hart 2007 ; Levitt and
Authors:Chang-Ping Hu, Ji-Ming Hu, Yan Gao and Yao-Kun Zhang
During recent years, Library and InformationScience (LIS) in China has being changed dramatically along with the reform and opening policy of China and the rapid growth of Chinese economy (Wu and Yuan 1994 ). LIS
has meant increased rapid changes for the library and informationscience field (LIS), both in academia and practice. Several studies have analyzed the variation of the LIS domain from various perspectives, such as researcher ranking, content analyses
count vs. citation count), we began our examination of library and informationscience (LIS) research in Korea with a bibliometric study of publications by LIS faculty in Korean universities. The study, which analyzed 2,401 peer-reviewed publications by
Authors:Frizo Janssens, Wolfgang Glänzel and Bart De Moor
Previous studies have shown that hybrid clustering methods that incorporate textual content and bibliometric information can
outperform clustering methods that use only one of these components. In this paper we apply a hybrid clustering method based
on Fisher’s inverse chisquare to integrate full-text with citations and to provide a mapping of the field of information science.
We quantitatively and qualitatively asses the added value of such an integrated analysis and we investigate whether the clustering
outcome is a better representation of the field by comparing with a text-only clustering and with another hybrid method based
on linear combination of distance matrices. Our data set consists of almost 1000 articles and notes published in the period
2002–2004 in 5 representative journals. The optimal number of clusters for the field is 5, determined by using a combination
of distance-based and stability-based methods. Term networks present the cognitive structure of the field and are complemented
by the most representative publications. Three large traditional sub-disciplines, particularly, information retrieval, bibliometrics/scientometrics,
and more social aspects, and two smaller clusters about patent analysis and webometrics, can be distinguished.
The paper briefly outlines the contributions made by V.V. Nalimov to the development of science of science, scientometrics,
and information science, especially during his career in VINITI. It also brings attention to his main achievements in philosophy,
linguistics, and other branches of modern science.
This paper considers the status of information science as science through an exploration ofone of the leading journals in the field – the Journal of the American Society for InformationScience (JASIS) from its initial publication as American Documentation (AD) in 1950 through theclosing issue of its Silver Anniversary year in December 1999. It is a bibliometric examination ofAD/JASIS articles. Based on our analysis of articles published in AD and JASIS from 1950 to1999, we find that there has been a slow but perhaps inevitable shift based first on the single nonfundedresearcher and author to a much wider research and publishing participation amongauthors, regions, corporate authors, and countries. This suggests not only cross-fertilization ofideas, but also more complex research questions. A small trend toward greater external fundingfurther reinforces this hypothesis. Information may no longer be "little" science, but it is also not"big" science.