Journal clustering through interlocking editorship information

Ni, Chong; Ding, Ying

doi:10.1002/meet.14504701202

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The MIS cluster is not very close (by author profile) to other clusters, as demonstrated by its isolated status in the figure. Similar status was founded for MIS journals by Ni and Ding () in their analysis of the editorial board members and Sugimoto et al. () in their analysis of MIS and IS&LS journals.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 57%

Venue‐author‐coupling: A measure for identifying disciplines through author communities

Sugimoto

Jiang

2012

J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptualizations of disciplinarity often focus on the social aspects of disciplines; that is, disciplines are defined by the set of individuals who participate in their activities and communications. However, operationalizations of disciplinarity often demarcate the boundaries of disciplines by standard classification schemes, which may be inflexible to changes in the participation profile of that discipline. To address this limitation, a metric called venue-author-coupling (VAC) is proposed and illustrated using journals from the Journal Citation Report's (JCR) library science and information science category. As JCRs are some of the most frequently used categories in bibliometric analyses, this allows for an examination of the extent to which the journals in JCR categories can be considered as proxies for disciplines. By extending the idea of bibliographic coupling, VAC identifies similarities among journals based on the similarities of their author profiles. The employment of this method using information science and library science journals provides evidence of four distinct subfields, that is, management information systems, specialized information and library science, library sciencefocused, and information science-focused research. The proposed VAC method provides a novel way to examine disciplinarity from the perspective of author communities.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 57%

Venue‐author‐coupling: A measure for identifying disciplines through author communities

Sugimoto

Jiang

2012

J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Journals listed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) under the subject category IS-LS tend to cluster into three or four major sub-fields, including: management information systems (MIS), information science (IS), library science (LS), and scientometrics (MoyaAnegon et al 2006;Milojevic et al 2011;Ni and Ding 2010;Ni and Sugimoto 2011).The distinctness of the MIS cluster has led many to remove these journals from their bibliometrics analyses, arguing that they should not be included in the same JCR class (Milojevic et al 2011;Waltman et al 2011). who found that knowledge management journals are often integrated within the lists of related fields such as MIS, LS and strategic management, opined that journal ranking lists should be discipline-specific and cover only one particular area, otherwise, ranking validity may be dramatically compromised.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: a stated preference study

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This stated preference study approached the issue on sub-categorization of the information science-library science (IS-LS) journals listed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2011. To investigate this, 243 active authors/editors publishing in this field were requested to indicate their preferred category to 83 journal titles listed in JCR 2011 from four options: information science (IS), library science (LS), information systems (ISys) and do not know/undecided. Based on the popularity count, respondents assigned 39 titles to LS, 23 titles to IS and 21 titles to ISys. Twenty-five titles received high ''do-not-know'' counts-these are titles in non-English languages, information management and publishing sub-fields. Only one title in LS was grouped in the highest quartile by impact factor, compared to 8 titles in IS and 11 in ISys. This indicates that LS journals are hardly represented among the top 25 % of the impact factor distribution of JCR's ranked IS-LS journals. Respondents show concern about the ''fit'' of information systems journals in the IS-LS category.

show abstract

“…The analysis also reinforces the perception that J CR 's category of IS&LS is not a cohesive grouping. Within this larger group, subfields with differing publishing and citation patterns are evident, as Ni and Ding () noted. Moreover, when clustering is based on the similarity of journal descriptions, rather than editorial board membership, different groupings appear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…However, portal: Libraries and the Academy is in the international library practice cluster. Ni and Ding's (2010) analysis of interlocking editorial board membership provides a useful comparison with Figure 5. For example, almost all the journals that do not share editorial board members appear in the international library practice cluster.…”

Section: Journal Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here we present a systematic analysis of 66 journals in ISI's Information Science and Library Science (IS&LS) category to examine how certain bibliographic features relate to journal impact. The IS&LS journal set provides an interesting test case; several researchers have interpreted bibliometric data to indicate distinct subgroups within this category (e.g., Boyack, Klavans, & Börner, 2005;Marshakova-Shaikevich, 2005;Ni & Ding, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Journal impact and proximity: An assessment using bibliographic features

Shaw

Lind

et al. 2013

J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journals in the Information Science & Library Science category of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were compared using both bibliometric and bibliographic features. Data collected covered journal impact factor (JIF), number of issues per year, number of authors per article, longevity, editorial board membership, frequency of publication, number of databases indexing the journal, number of aggregators providing full‐text access, country of publication, JCR categories, Dewey decimal classification, and journal statement of scope. Three features significantly correlated with JIF: number of editorial board members and number of JCR categories in which a journal is listed correlated positively; journal longevity correlated negatively with JIF. Coword analysis of journal descriptions provided a proximity clustering of journals, which differed considerably from the clusters based on editorial board membership. Finally, a multiple linear regression model was built to predict the JIF based on all the collected bibliographic features.

show abstract

Journal clustering through interlocking editorship information

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

Venue‐author‐coupling: A measure for identifying disciplines through author communities

Venue‐author‐coupling: A measure for identifying disciplines through author communities

LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: a stated preference study

Journal impact and proximity: An assessment using bibliographic features

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About