Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 80, Issue 3, pp 717–729 | Cite as

Web 2.0 and its dimensions in the scholarly world

  • Heting ChuEmail author
  • Chen Xu
Article

Abstract

A bibliometric analysis was performed on a set of 1718 documents relating to Web 2.0 to explore the dimensions and characteristics of this emerging field. It has been found that Web 2.0 has its root deep in social networks with medicine and sociology as the major contributing disciplines to the scholarly publications beyond its technology backbone — information and computer science. Terms germane to Web 2.0, extracted from the data collected in this study, were also visualized to reflect the very nature of this rising star on the Internet. Web 2.0, according to the current research, is of the user, by the user, and more importantly, for the user.

Keywords

Social Network Subject Domain Publication Source Subject Distribution Subject Orientation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, R. S. (2001), Interdisciplinary research: A literature-based examination of disciplinary intersections using a common tool, Geographic Information System (GIS). Science & Technology Libraries, 21: 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgman, C., Furner, J. (2002), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 36: 3–72.Google Scholar
  3. Boutin, P., Web 2.0: The new Internet “boom” does not live up to its name. http://www.slate.com/id/2138951. March 29, 2006.
  4. Bradford, S. C., Documentation, Crosby Lockwood, London, 1948.Google Scholar
  5. Calero, C., Buter, R., Valoes, C., Noyons, E. (2006), How to identify research groups using publication analysis: An example in the field of nanotechnology, Scientometrics, 66: 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fennewald, J. (2007), The ACRL conferences: A profile of its presenters, College & Research Libraries, 68: 107–18.Google Scholar
  7. Gutmans, A., What is Web 2.0? [Video]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LzQIUAN nHc. September 10, 2006.
  8. Hassan, E. (2003), Simultaneous mapping of interactions between scientific and technological knowledge bases: The case of space communications, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54: 462–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kipp, M. E. I., Campbell, D. G., Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging systems: An examination of tagging practices. Proceedings of the 69 th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, [CD-ROM]. Also available: http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00008315, 2006.
  10. Madden, M., Fox, S., Riding the waves of “Web 2.0”: More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined, Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/189/report_display.asp. October 5, 2006.
  11. O’Reilly, T., What is Web 2.0? http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. September 30, 2005.
  12. Reid, E. O. F. (1997), Evolution of a body of knowledge: An analysis of terrorism research. Information Processing & Management, 33: 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. White, H.D., Mccain, K.W. (1997), Visualization of literatures, Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 32: 99–168.Google Scholar
  14. Zhao, D., Logan, E. (2001), Citation analysis of scientific publications on the Web: A case study on the research area of XML, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, 2: 779–794.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information & Computer ScienceLong Island UniversityBrookvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations