Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The dynamics of research subfields for library and information science: an investigation based on word bibliographic coupling

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uncovering research topics, manifesting the relationships, and revealing the structure in a discipline are major and important research issues in library and information science (LIS). To understand the evolution of research subfields in LIS during two periods, 2009 to 2013 and 2014 to 2018, this study proposes and applies a novel method, word bibliographic coupling, to measure the relationships between different feature words extracted from 21,066 research articles published in 44 LIS journals. According to the results of factor analysis, the top 25 subfields are identified for each period. The results show that core research subfields in LIS remain relatively stable, but new subfields replaced old ones due to the change of society or the development of technology. The subfields identified in this study can be further categorized into six main research trends, including Scholarly Communication and Scientometrics, Information Behavior and Information Retrieval, Applications of Technology, Library Services and Management, Health Information and Technology, and Computer Science Techniques. Most subfields related to the same research trend correlated to each other, but the subfields of Library Services and Management scatter over the networks. This study depicts the recent development of research subfields and significant research trends in LIS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrizah, A., Noorhidawati, A., & Zainab, A. N. (2015). LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: A stated preference study. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1083–1099.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åström, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S., Klein E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural Language Processing with Python. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1970). Citation indexing for studying science. Nature, 227(5259), 669–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland, B. (2003). Fundamentals of knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 30(2), 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou, J., Yang, X., & Chen, C. (2018). Emerging trends and new developments in information science: A document co-citation analysis (2009–2016). Scientometrics, 115(2), 869–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, T.-M., & Chen, K.-H. (2019). Word bibliographic coupling: another way to map science field and identify core references. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M., Shaw, W.-C., & Lin, C.-S. (2019). One category, two communities: Subfield differences in “Information Science and Library Science” in Journal Citation Reports. Scientometrics, 119(2), 1059–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W., Wang, B., Bu, Y., & Min, C. (2018). A study on scientometrics of co-citation analysis of keywords. Information and Documentation Services, 2018(2), 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, M. (1963). An experimental study of bibliographic coupling between technical papers (Corresp.). IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 9(1), 49–51.

  • Liu, G., & Yang, L. (2019). Popular research topics in the recent journal publications of library and information science. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(3), 278–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, R. (2012). Author bibliographic coupling analysis: A test based on a Chinese academic database. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 532–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshakove, I. (1973). System of document connections based on references. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, 2(6), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S. A., & Martens, B V d e r V. (2008). Mapping research specialties. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 213–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, F., Vargas-Quesada, B., Herrero-Solana, V., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Corera-Álvarez, E., & Munoz-Fernández, F. J. (2004). A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics, 61(1), 129–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Carpenter, M., & Berlt, N. C. (1972). Interrelationships of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 23(5), 323–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmeda-Gómez, C., Ovalle-Perandones, M.-A., & Perianes-Rodríguez, A. (2017). Co-word analysis and thematic landscapes in Spanish information science literature, 1985–2014. Scientometrics, 113(1), 195–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D J d e S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author co-citation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1982). Authors as markers of intellectual space: co-citation in studies of science, technology and society. Journal of Documentation, 38(4), 255–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Yang, S., Han, R., Wolfram, D., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 132–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008a). Author bibliographic coupling: Another approach to citation-based author knowledge network analysis. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008b). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008c). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2014). The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 995–1006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China under Grant Number MOST 108-2410-H-002-220. The authors are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, 10617, Taiwan

    Tsung-Ming Hsiao & Kuang-hua Chen

Authors
  1. Tsung-Ming Hsiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kuang-hua Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Tsung-Ming Hsiao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing. Kuang-hua Chen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuang-hua Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Availability of data and material

The data in this paper were obtained from the Web of Science produced by Clarivate Analytics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hsiao, TM., Chen, Kh. The dynamics of research subfields for library and information science: an investigation based on word bibliographic coupling. Scientometrics 125, 717–737 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03645-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03645-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation