Skip to main content
Log in

Information management or knowledge management? An informetric view of the dynamics of Academia

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study analyzes the similarities and differences of performance of information management (IM) and knowledge management (KM) research publication indexed by the SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI and A&HCI databases since 1994 with informetric methods in order to explore a developing tendency in the near future. The bibliographic search supplied 1199 IM and 1063 KM records. A very few of IM and KM authors contributed two or more articles. Four countries dominated global IM and KM research productivity, while a few institutions played remarkable roles in scholarly activity. IM journals distributed widespread and 84 per cent just published one or two articles; KM publications were rather concentrated to core and borderline periodicals, fitting Bradford's law of scattering and. The result of Pearson's correlation coefficients analysis indicates that the higher the journal impact factor, the more times the published article is cited. The author concludes that KM has been leading IM in both publication productivity and academic population and the tendency is overwhelmingly growing.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bird, J. E. (1997), Authorship patterns in marine mammal science, 1985-1993. Scientometrics, 39 (1): 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, D. C. (2002), Knowledge management: hype, hope, or help? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (12): 1019–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Fernandez, M. T., Gomez, I. (2002), Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance in a peripheral country. Scientometrics, 53 (2): 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., Weber, E. (2002), Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 287 (21): 2847–2850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2002), Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50 (3): 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, W. (2000), Who controls the controllers? Ten statements on the so-called impact factor. Onkologie, 23 (1): 73–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grange, R. I. (1999), National bias in citations in urology journals: parochialism or availability? BJU international, 84 (6): 601–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grey, D. (1998), Knowledge Management and Information Management: The Differences. [On-line].

  • Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Wormell, I. (2000), Applying diachronic citation analysis to research program evaluations. In: B. Cronin, H. Atkins (Eds), Web of Knowledge - A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, ASIS Monograph Series. Metford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., pp. 373–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. T. (2000), How many neurosurgeons does it take to write a research article? Authorship proliferation in neurosurgical research. Neurosurgery, 47 (2): 435–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG (2003). European Knowledge Management Survey 2002/2003. [On-line]. Available: http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/1935/kpmg_kmsurvey_results_jan_2003.pdf

  • Lee, K. P., Schotland, M., Bacchetti, P., Bero, L. A. (2002), Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 287 (21): 2805–2808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin, R. (2002), Qualitative and quantitative aspects of recent research on helminth parasites. Journal of Helminthology, 76 (4): 373–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prusak, L. (2001), Where did knowledge management come from? IBM Systems Journal - Knowledge Management, 40(4): 1002–1007. [On-line]. Available: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/prusak.html

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., Yank, V., Emanuel, L. (1997), When authorship fails - a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 278 (7): 579–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R., Van Hooydonk, G. (1996), Journal production and journal impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47 (10): 775–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonbaert, D., Roelants, G. (1996), Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Tropical Medicine & International Health, 1 (6): 739–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O., Aksnes, D. W. (2000), Scientific productivity and group size: a bibliometric analysis of Norwegian microbiological research. Scientometrics, 49 (1): 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, J., Grohmann, G. (2001), Citation rates, knowledge export and international visibility of dermatology journals listed and not listed in the Journal Citation Reports. Scientometrics, 50 (3): 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gu, Y. Information management or knowledge management? An informetric view of the dynamics of Academia. Scientometrics 61, 285–299 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045111.51946.ba

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045111.51946.ba

Keywords

Navigation