Identifying the research focus of Library and Information Science institutions in China with institution-specific keywords

Abstract

In order to distinguish the research focus between different Library and Information Science (LIS) research institutions in China, we use the Keyword Activity Index (KAI) to identify their institution-specific keywords. The KAI, whose idea is borrowed from the Activity Index, measures whether an institution has alternatively comparative advantage in a particular topic according to its share in publications. In this study, a total of 65,653 papers from 19 core LIS journals in China during the period of 2000-2013 are collected. The top 8 most prolific LIS research institutions in China are selected for further investigation of the utility of KAI. Their institution-specific keywords are extracted based on the KAI values to represent their research focus and then clustered using co-word analysis; the research advantages of each institution are analyzed and compared according to these clusters. The reasons of their research advantages are analyzed based on their research function and research background.

Twenty-six years of LIS research focus and hot spots, 1990–2016: A co-word analysis

“…The field of LIS has not been the exception. The review of literature in recent years shows that studies related to the intellectual structure of LIS, regardless of the type of co-occurrence technique used, generally fall into four main categories: (1) Studies that have explored the overall structure of LIS : Chen et al [60], Bhatia and Kumar [61], Milojevic et al [62], Masuda [63], Zhao and Strotmann [24], Galvez [64], Onyancha [65] and Larivière et al [66]; (2) Studies that have been performed with the focus of subcategories of LIS : information systems [67], research methods [68], electronic publishing [69], communications [70], information retrieval [71,72], knowledge management [73 –75], information behaviour [76,77], iMetrics [78 –81], information literacy [82] and library hi technologies [83]; (3) Studies have simultaneously used several co-occurrence techniques : Astrom [84], Chang et al [22], Olmeda-Gómez et al [85] and Wang et al [86]; and (4) Studies that have explored the LIS-related records indexed in bibliographic databases of a particular country : China [87 –90], North America [91], Spain [85,92,93], Mexico [94] and the United States [95].…”

Knowledge visualization and mapping of information literacy, 1975–2018

“…Although the use of author-supplied keywords to map and visualize the nature and evolution of a concept is a common practice among informetricians or bibliometricians (see Chen et al 2015; Khan and Wood 2015; Liu et al 2015; Yang et al 2016), there are some limitations, chief of which are (a) some journals do not require authors to supply keywords and (b) author-supplied keywords are not controlled vocabulary and therefore authors can refer to the same concept differently. The latter point was manifest when analysing the literacies that co-occurred with information literacy in the literature.…”

GKEEP: An Enhanced Graph‐Based Keyword Extractor With Error‐Feedback Propagation for Geoscience Reports

“…Chen et al. (2015) used the active index (AI) to demonstrate whether a country/region has comparative advantages based on its share of total world publication. Hu et al.…”

“…Su et al (2014) selected high-frequency keywords to analyze research hotspots and develop domain trends. Chen et al (2015) used the active index (AI) to demonstrate whether a country/region has comparative advantages based on its share of total world publication. Hu et al (2018) presented a domain-keyword analysis approach using a Google Word2Vec model by extending the term frequency-keyword AI.…”