Scientometrics

, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 869–892 | Cite as

Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)

Article
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

Characterizing the structure of knowledge, the evolution of research topics, and the emergence of topics has always been an important part of information science (IS). Our previous scientometric review of IS provided a snapshot of this fast-growing field up to the end of 2008. This new study aims to identify emerging trends and new developments appearing in the subsequent 7574 articles published in 10 IS journals between 2009 and 2016, including 20,960 references. The results of a document co-citation analysis show great changes in the research topics in the IS domain. The positions of certain core topics found in the previous study, namely, information retrieval, webometrics, and citation behavior, have been replaced by scientometric indicators (H-index), citation analysis (citation performance and bibliometrics), scientific collaboration, and information behavior in the most recent period of 2009–2016. Dual-map overlays of journals show that the knowledge base of IS research has shifted considerably since 2010, with emerging topics including scientific evaluation indicators, altmetrics, science mapping and visualization, bibliometrics, citation analysis, and scientific collaboration.

Keywords

Information science Information visualization CiteSpace Co-citation analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers. This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China under Grant 17BGL031.

References

  1. Aharony, N. (2012). Library and information science research areas: A content analysis of articles from the top 10 journals 2007–8. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 44(1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albarran, P., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). References made and citations received by scientific articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Astrom, F. (2007). Changes in the LIS research front: Time-sliced co-citation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990–2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 947–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L. (2012). Measuring the societal impact of research. EMBO Reports, 13(8), 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornmann, L. (2013). How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics: The statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 587–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citingbehavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, Y. W., Huang, M. H., & Lin, C. W. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2071–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(2), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, C., Dubin, R., & Kim, M. C. (2014). Emerging trends and new developments inregenerativemedicine: A scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 14(9), 1295–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, C., Hu, Z., Liu, S., & Tseng, H. (2012). Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opinions on Biological Therapy, 12(5), 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, C., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., & Hou, J. H. (2010). The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 334–351.Google Scholar
  17. Cimenler, O., Reeves, K. A., & Skvoretz, J. (2014). A regression analysis of researchers’ social network metrics on their citation performance in a college of engineering. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. D'Angelo, C. A., Giuffrida, C., & Abramo, G. (2011). A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  20. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiala, D., Subelj, L., Zitnikl, S., & Bajec, M. (2015). Do PageRank-based author rankings outperform simple citation counts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 334–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fidel, R. (2012). An Ecological Approach to Information Behavior: Conclusions (pp. 253–254). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finardi, U. (2013). Correlation between journal impact factor and citation performance: An experimental study. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Franceschet, M. (2010). A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83(1), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Domesticity and internationality in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 65(3), 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glenisson, P., Glänzel, W., & Persson, O. (2005a). Combining full text analysis and bibliometric indicators. A pilot study. Scientometrics, 63(1), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glenisson, P., Jassens, F., & Moor, D. B. (2005b). Combining full text and bibliometric information in mapping scientific disciplines. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1548–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glanzel, W. (2013). Opportunities for and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85(3), 741–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ibekwe-SanJuan, F. (2009). Information science in the web era: A term-based approach to domain mapping. In Annual meeting of american society for information science and technology, November 6–11, 2009, Vancouver, Canada (pp 1–13).Google Scholar
  34. Janssens, F., Glänzel, W., & Moor, D. B. (2008). A hybrid mapping of information science. Scientometrics, 75(3), 607–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Janssens, F., Leta, J., Glänzel, W., & de Moor, B. (2006). Towards mapping library and information science. Information Processing and Management, 42(6), 1614–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jassens, F., Glenisson, P., Glänzel, W., & De Moor, B. (2005). Co-clustering approaches to integrate lexical and bibliographical information. ISSI 2005. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Vols. 1 and 2(pp. 284–289).Google Scholar
  37. Jeong, Y. K., Song, M., & Ding, Y. (2014). Content-based author co-citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim, M. C., & Chen, C. (2015). A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in recommendation systems. Scientometrics, 104(1), 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2011). Using global mapping to create more accurate document-level maps of research fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klavans, R., Persson, O., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Coco at the copacabana: Introducing co-cited author pair co-citation (Coco) analysis. In Proceedings of the international conference on scientometrics and informetrics. Rio de JaneiroBRAZIL, 2009.Google Scholar
  42. Li, X. F., Jiang, W. M., Yang, H. L., Tang, T. S., Gong, X. H., Yuan, J., et al. (2010). Surgical treatment of chronic C1-C2 dislocation with absence of odontoid process using C1 hooks with C2 pedicle screws a case report and review of literature. SPINE, 36(18), E1245–E1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu, X. M., Zhou, X. Q., & Lu, C. (2005). Four-wave mixing assisted stability enhancement: Theory, experiment, and application. Optics Letters, 30(17), 2257–2259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu, Y., & Yang, Y. L. (2014). Empirical study of L-sequence: The basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly citation performance. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 478–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Milojević, S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Information metrics (iMetrics): A research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity? Scientometrics, 95(1), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Milojević, S., Sugimoto, C. R., Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2011). The cognitive structure of library and information science: Analysis of article title words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1933–1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nisonger, T. E., & Davis, C. H. (2005). The perception of library and information science journals by LIS education deans and ARL library directors: A replication of the Kohl-Davis study. College and Research Libraries, 66(4), 341–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Persson, O. (2001). All author citations versus first author citations. Scientometrics, 50(2), 339–344.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Persson, O. (2010). Identifying research themes with weighted direct citation links. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 415–422.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday.  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i7.2874.Google Scholar
  53. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rafols, I., Porter, A. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1871–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stirling, A., Lobstein, T., & Millstone, E. (2007). Methodology for obtaining stakeholder assessments of obesity policy options in the PorGrow project. Obesity Reviews, 8(z2), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thelwall, M. (2016). Citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 863–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Lariviere, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. Plos One, 8(5), e64841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2015). How important is computing technology for library and information science research? Library and Information Science Research, 37(1), 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tuomaala, O., Jarvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (2014). Evolution of library and information science, 1965–2005: Content analysis of journal articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology., 65(7), 1446–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. VanDenBesselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2006). Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: A method and an exploratory case study. Scientometrics, 68(3), 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wagner, C. S., Shehata, S., Henzler, K., Yuan, J. Y., & Wittemann, A. (2011). Towards nanoscale composite particles of dual complexity. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 355(1), 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012a). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012b). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang, J., Duncan, D., Shi, Z., & Zhang, B. (2013). WEB–based GEne SeT AnaLysis Toolkit (WebGestalt): Update 2013. Nucleic Acids Research, 41(W1), W77–W83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system:Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. White, H. D. (2003). Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.Google Scholar
  73. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control—Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Report for the Surf Foundation.Google Scholar
  74. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yang, S. L., Han, R. Z., Wolfram, D., & Zhao, Y. H. (2016). Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 132–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yang, S. L., & Wang, F. F. (2015). Visualizing information science: Author direct citation analysis in China and around the world. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 208–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhang, J. A., Vogeley, M. S., & Chen, C. M. (2011). Scientometrics of big science: A case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Scientometrics, 86(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zhao, D. Z., & Strotmann, A. (2008a). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2070–2086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhao, D. Z., & Strotmann, A. (2008b). Information science during the first decade of the web: an enriched author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhao, D. Z., & Strotmann, A. (2008c). Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zhao, D. Z., & Strotmann, A. (2014). The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 995–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zhao, Y. H., & Zhao, R. Y. (2016). An evolutionary analysis of collaboration networks in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 107(2), 759–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center of Science Technology and SocietyDalian UniversityDalianChina
  2. 2.College of Information EngineeringDalian UniversityDalianChina
  3. 3.College of Computing and InformaticsDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations