Intellectual structure of information science 2011–2020: an author co-citation analysis

Abstract

PurposeThis study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011–2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006–2010 through 2011–2015 to 2016–2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field.Design/methodology/approachThe well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011–2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor.FindingsThe two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011–2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016–2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016–2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011–2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016–2020.Originality/valueAuthor co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.

Exploring Research Fields Through Institutional Contributions to Academic Journals

“…We have adjusted according to title changes and discontinued titles. This list of core journals has formed the basis of several studies of library and information science in its original version as well as revised versions [recent examples include 22,23,24].…”

Publishing in library and information science journals: The success of less experienced researchers

“…For the purpose of this study, we draw on an existing list including library and information science journals categorised as information science journals and library automation journals [56]. The list or modified versions of it has formed the basis of several studies of library and information science (recent examples include Zhao and Strotmann [57], Hoiu et al [58] and Nicolaisen and Frandsen [59]). The list is adjusted according to title changes.…”

What characterizes LIS as a fragmenting discipline?

“…However, there is not direct empirical evidence supporting this conclusion, although some scholars have suggested that the literatures used within the subfields of LIS do not overlap (Wilson, 1983;Ingwersen and J€ arvelin, 2005). In addition, findings from studies on the intellectual structure of information science based on author co-citation analysis consistently show a strong differentiation between two camps called knowledge domain analysis (bibliometricsscientometrics) and information retrieval (Persson, 1994;White and McCain, 1998;Zhao and Strotmann, 2021). The connections between these camps are weak indicating their low mutual dependence.…”