The preferences of Chinese LIS journal articles in citing works outside the discipline

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how Chinese library and information science (LIS) journal articles cite works from outside the discipline (WOD) to identify the impact of knowledge import from outside the discipline on LIS development. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores the Chinese LIS’ preferences in citing WOD by employing bibliometrics and machine learning techniques. Findings Chinese LIS citations to WOD account for 29.69 percent of all citations, and they rise over time. Computer science, education and communication are the most frequently cited disciplines. Under the categorization of Biglan model, Chinese LIS prefers to cite WOD from soft science, applied science or nonlife science. In terms of community affiliation, the cited authors are mostly from the academic community, but rarely from the practice community. Mass media has always been a citation source that is hard to ignore. There is a strong interest of Chinese LIS in citing emerging topics. Practical implications This paper can be implemented in the reformulation of Chinese LIS knowledge system, the promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration, the development of LIS library collection and faculty advancement. It may also be used as a reference to develop strategies for the global LIS. Originality/value This paper fills the research gap in analyzing citations to WOD from Chinese LIS articles and their impacts on LIS, and recommends that Chinese LIS should emphasize on knowledge both on technology and people as well as knowledge from the practice community, cooperate with partners from other fields, thus to produce knowledge meeting the demands from library and information practice as well as users.

Cross-disciplinary collaboration versus coexistence in LIS serials: analysis of authorship affiliations in four European countries

“…Åström (2010) studied the relationship between information science and library science as LIS subfields, and found that the different citation patterns in the two areas were indicators of the interdisciplinary nature of LIS. Another example of this methodology is the work of Chen et al (2018), who concluded from an analysis of references that Chinese LIS authors get almost 30% of their information from sources outside of LIS publications. In a similar vein, Levitt and Thelwall (2009) analysed the origins of the top 0.01% citations in the most cited LIS articles in WoS, and observed the importance of links to other disciplines as a factor to explain the greater impact of those works.…”

The impact of Chinese library and information science on outside disciplines: A citation analysis

“…Interdisciplinary knowledge transfer involving the import and export of knowledge is an important aspect of knowledge creation (Linderman and Chandrasekaran, 2010) and technology development (Mei and Liu, 2013), as it enhances the impact of research on policy and practice (Fazey et al, 2014). In scientific communities, knowledge import shows the influence of knowledge from outside disciplines (Chen et al, 2018), while knowledge export is an indicator of the scientific strength and impact needed to cross the traditional boundaries of the home discipline (Wormell, 1998). The effective adoption and diffusion of knowledge are the keys to maintaining the value of research achievements and bringing that knowledge into full play (Zhai et al, 2018).…”

The impact of library and information science knowledge from the perspective of external citations

“…Since 1973, researchers have been trying to update, refine and re-create the discipline-to-dimension relationship (Simpson, 2017; Stoecker, 1993; Xu, 2008) that has enabled the Biglan model to track contemporary discipline development. Dimension I and dimension II have been widely applied to explore disciplinary differences by researchers from a variety of disciplines, such as LIS, education and language and linguistics (Chen et al , 2018, 2020; Durrant, 2017; Huang et al , 2018; Madden et al , 2018; Munk and Thomsen, 2018; Li, 2019). Although the two dichotomies of dimension I and dimension II are challenged by a heterogeneous pattern across disciplines (Prinsloo, 2018), they are currently validated, ever-developing and widely applied in a discipline classification dividing disciplines into four categories: hard-pure, soft-pure, hard-applied and soft-applied.…”