4.5 Article

Journal clustering of library and information science for subfield delineation using the bibliometric analysis toolkit: CATAR

期刊

SCIENTOMETRICS
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 503-528

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-0964-1

关键词

Document clustering; Bibliographic coupling; Journal classification; Research performance evaluation; Freeware

资金

  1. Aim for the Top University Project of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU)
  2. Ministry of Education, Taiwan, ROC
  3. National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan [NSC 100-2511-S-003-053-MY2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of techniques based on bibliometric clustering and mapping for scientometrics analysis was implemented in a software toolkit called CATAR for free use. Application of the toolkit to the field of library and information science (LIS) based on journal clustering for subfield identification and analysis to suggest a proper set of LIS journals for research evaluation is described. Two sets of data from Web of Science in the Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) subject category of Journal Citation Reports were analyzed: one ranges from year 2000 to 2004, the other from 2005 to 2009. The clustering results in graphic dendrograms and multi-dimensional scaling maps from both datasets consistently show that some IS&LS journals clustered in the management information systems subfield are distant from the other journals in terms of their intellectual base. Additionally, the cluster characteristics analyzed based on a diversity index reveals the regional characteristics for some identified subfields. Since journal classification has become a high-stake issue that affects the evaluation of scholars and universities in some East Asian countries, both cases (isolation in intellectual base and regionalism in national interest) should be taken into consideration when developing research evaluation in LIS based on journal classification and ranking for the evaluation to be fairly implemented without biasing future LIS research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据