A View of Studies on Bibliometrics and Related Subjects in Japan

Abstract

This article surveys studies on bibliometrics and related subjects in Japan. Reviewed articles are classified according to the following categories: (a) studies on bibliometrics—including bibliometric laws, citation studies, scientific communication, and software tools for bibliometrics; and (b) application of bibliometrics—including policies for scientific research, bibliometrics and information retrieval, and databases in oriental languages. An interesting characteristic in the Japanese studies is that databases of texts in oriental languages such as Japanese and Chinese have been developed. Applications of fuzzy set theory to document retrieval using bibliometric techniques are also observed. We emphasize the models and methods used in common between bibliometrics and other fields of sciences.

Citations Gone #Social: Examining the Effect of Altmetrics on Citations and Readership in Communication Research

“…Another example is the dedication of an entire 1989 issue of Communication Research to bibliometrics. Here, scholars examined issues such as co-citation in AIDS research (Small & Greenlee, 1989), citation patterns in Japanese studies (Miyamoto, Midorikawa, & Nakayama, 1989), co-citation mapping of scientific scholars (McCain, 1989), and how the invisible college manifested through citation (Lievrouw, 1989). The invisible college refers to a cluster of scholars with shared interests but geographically located at different institutions.…”

The sociological turn in information science

“…Citation matrices and co-citation maps -techniques, it is worth noting in passing, that have been developed, refined and successfully exported by information science over the years -allow one to visualize the ideational interpenetration of fields; to see the intellectual trade routes that exist between discrete scholarly communities, e.g. [22][23][24][25].…”

The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies

“…Miyamoto, Midorikawa, and Nakayama (1990, p. 80) found that library and information science took “89% of its journal citations from itself” and opined that it might “lapse into irrelevancy.” In their analysis of the subfield of human information behavior (HIB)—an area, it would appear, of growing significance within information studies—McKechnie, Goodall, Lajoie‐Paquette, and Julien (2005) found that HIB research was consumed primarily by other human information behavior researchers: 85% of all citations to the literature came from insiders. They concluded that human information behavior was “yet to have theoretical and methodological impact on other disciplines.” A cocitation analysis by Ellis, Allen, and Wilson (1999) found little evidence of intellectual interaction between the ostensibly cognate domains of information science and information systems.…”