4.5 Article

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

期刊

SCIENTOMETRICS
卷 124, 期 1, 页码 575-602

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03471-z

关键词

Authorship analysis; Coauthorship analysis; Cross-disciplinary collaboration analysis; Interdisciplinarity; Multidisciplinarity; Library and information science; Scopus; SJR; France; Germany; Spain; United Kingdom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interdisciplinary nature of library and information science (LIS) research has been highlighted for some time now. The term interdisciplinary is used primarily in the LIS literature as a general concept with different meanings that refer either to the coexistence of researchers from different scientific fields or to cross-disciplinary collaboration expressed in the form of coauthorship. This study analyses the disciplinary profile of LIS researchers with a view to ascertaining the actual level of cross-disciplinary collaboration and identifying all fields involved. Because of the complexity of identifying accurate affiliations at knowledge area level, the study was limited to authors from France, Germany, Spain and the UK. This analysis of authorship affiliation was performed based on research published in LIS serial titles indexed in Scopus during the 2010-2017 period. A rigorous and laborious process of identifying author affiliations was carried out. This involved checking the authorship of each paper and complementing this with information from websites, scientific social networks and other research endeavours whenever ambiguous situations arose. We observed that LIS departments produce barely a third of the research published in serial titles in the LIS subject category. Cross-disciplinary collaboration among all of the scientific fields involved is low, and even lower in LIS than in other fields. The low level of cross-disciplinary collaboration in LIS contradicts the interdisciplinary nature of LIS highlighted in the literature.

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