L'A. passe en revue les techniques de visualisation utilisees pour representer de facon cartographique la structure de domaine des disciplines scientifiques, et pour soutenir la recherche d'information et la classification. Un bref historique montre que la visualisation des domaines de connaissances s'enracine dans des disciplines telles que la scientometrie, la bibliometrie et l'analyse de citations, ainsi que la visualisation scientifique. L'A. analyse les principales etapes du processus de visualisation des domaines de connaissances : unites d'analyse, mesures, similarites entre unites. Differentes techniques couramment utilisees pour l'analyse et la visualisation des connaissances sont passees en revue : techniques de reduction de la dimensionnalite, analyse par clusters, configuration spatiale, visualisation et conception d'interaction. Differentes approches sont appliquees pour engendrer et comparer diverses representations cartographiques de la recherche sur la visualisation des domaines de connaissances. Ces cartes mettent en valeur les relations entre l'analyse de citations, la bibliometrie, la semantique et la visualisation de l'information. Augmenter l'accessibilite de la visualisation des domaines aupres des non-experts, appliquer la visualisation des domaines de connaissances pour mieux repondre a des questions pragmatiques, favoriser la collaboration et la diffusion des resultats entre chercheurs, developper des algorithmes plus robustes, comptent parmi les directions de recherche les plus prometteuses.

https://cns.iu.edu/docs/publications/2003-borner-arist.pdf

Visualizing knowledge domains

Frontispiece - Derek J de Solla Price Introduction - Christine L Borgman PART ONE: THEORY AND PERSPECTIVE Understanding Science - Belver C Griffith Studies of Communication and Information Disciplinary Work and Interdisciplinary Areas - Sydney J Pierce Sociology and Bibliometrics Reconciling Structure and Process in the Study of Scholarly Communication - Leah A Lievrouw PART TWO: BIBLIOMETRIC RESEARCH METHODS A View of Studies on Bibliometrics and Related Subjects in Japan - S Miyamoto, N Midorikawa and K Nakayama Author Co-citation Studies - Howard D White Overview and Defense Who Carries the Field? Communication Between Literary Schools and Critics - Karl Erik Rosengren The Absence of Co-citation as a Clue to Undiscovered Causal Connections - Don R Swanson Hierarchies and Clusters Among Communication and Library and Information Science Journals, 1977 - 1987 - Ronald E Rice PART THREE: EMPIRICAL STUDIES An Author Co-citation Analysis of Two Research Traditions - Everett M Rogers and Charlotte A Cottrill Technology Transfer and the Diffusion of Innovations A Co-citation Study of AIDS Research - Henry Small and Edwin Greenlee Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space - Katherine W McCain Population Genetics in the 1980s International Scientific Cooperation and Awareness - H F Moed and R E DeBruin A Bibliometric Case Study of Agricultural Research Within the European Community Core Journals of the Rapidly Changing Research Front of "Superconductivity" - Terrance A Brooks Editors-in-Chief of Medical Journals - S Zsindely and A Schubert Identifying the Important Theorists of Communication - James R Beniger Use of Latent Measures to Test Manifest Assumptions in Scholarly Communication Conclusions - William Paisley The Future of Bibliometrics

/pdf/scholarly-communication-and-bibliometrics-36rmhm4g54.pdf

Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics

The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations andsor conducting citation analyses. The ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science (LIS) faculty members as a case study, the authors examine the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. The WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

/pdf/impact-of-data-sources-on-citation-counts-and-rankings-of-2tnouh7btp.pdf

Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar

The objective of the paper is to amalgamate theories of text retrieval from various research traditions into a cognitive theory for information retrieval interaction. Set in a cognitive framework, the paper outlines the concept of polyrepresentation applied to both the user's cognitive space and the information space of IR systems. The concept seeks to represent the current user's information need, problem state, and domain work task or interest in a structure of causality. Further, it implies that we should apply different methods of representation and a variety of IR techniques of different cognitive and functional origin simultaneously to each semantic full‐text entity in the information space. The cognitive differences imply that by applying cognitive overlaps of information objects, originating from different interpretations of such objects through time and by type, the degree of uncertainty inherent in IR is decreased. Polyrepresentation and the use of cognitive overlaps are associated with, but not identical to, data fusion in IR. By explicitly incorporating all the cognitive structures participating in the interactive communication processes during IR, the cognitive theory provides a comprehensive view of these processes. It encompasses the ad hoc theories of text retrieval and IR techniques hitherto developed in mainstream retrieval research. It has elements in common with van Rijsbergen and Lalmas' logical uncertainty theory and may be regarded as compatible with that conception of IR. Epistemologically speaking, the theory views IR interaction as processes of cognition, potentially occurring in all the information processing components of IR, that may be applied, in particular, to the user in a situational context. The theory draws upon basic empirical results from information seeking investigations in the operational online environment, and from mainstream IR research on partial matching techniques and relevance feedback. By viewing users, source systems, intermediary mechanisms and information in a global context, the cognitive perspective attempts a comprehensive understanding of essential IR phenomena and concepts, such as the nature of information needs, cognitive inconsistency and retrieval overlaps, logical uncertainty, the concept of ‘document’, relevance measures and experimental settings. An inescapable consequence of this approach is to rely more on sociological and psychological investigative methods when evaluating systems and to view relevance in IR as situational, relative, partial, differentiated and non‐linear. The lack of consistency among authors, indexers, evaluators or users is of an identical cognitive nature. It is unavoidable, and indeed favourable to IR. In particular, for full‐text retrieval, alternative semantic entities, including Salton et al.'s ‘passage retrieval’, are proposed to replace the traditional document record as the basic retrieval entity. These empirically observed phenomena of inconsistency and of semantic entities and values associated with data interpretation support strongly a cognitive approach to IR and the logical use of polyrepresentation, cognitive overlaps, and both data fusion and data diffusion.

Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction : elements of a cognitive IR theory

Traditionally, the most commonly used source of bibliometric data is Thomson ISI Web of Knowledge, in particular the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which provide the yearly Journal Impact Factors (JIF). This paper presents an alternative source of data (Google Scholar, GS) as well as 3 alternatives to the JIF to assess journal impact (h-index, g-index and the number of citations per paper). Because of its broader range of data sources, the use of GS gen- erally results in more comprehensive citation coverage in the area of management and international business. The use of GS particularly benefits academics publishing in sources that are not (well) cov- ered in ISI. Among these are books, conference papers, non-US journals, and in general journals in the field of strategy and international business. The 3 alternative GS-based metrics showed strong correlations with the traditional JIF. As such, they provide academics and universities committed to JIFs with a good alternative for journals that are not ISI-indexed. However, we argue that these metrics provide additional advantages over the JIF and that the free availability of GS allows for a democratization of citation analysis as it provides every academic access to citation data regardless of their institution's financial means.

https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep2008/8/e008p061.pdf

Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis

Analyzing the collective opinion of presumed experts, often termed a perception study, is a frequently used approach for rating journals or evaluating education programs. Replicating the 1985 Kohl–Davis study, seventy-one library and information science (LIS) journals are ranked according to their mean rating on a 1 to 5 ordinal scale by deans of ALA-accredited education programs and by the directors of ARL libraries (surveyed during the summer of 2003). Comparison of the results with the 1985 study found considerable continuity in journal perceptions over the past two decades, but more so by directors than deans. A weak to moderate correlation was found between deans’ ratings and Journal Citation Reports citation scores, whereas the correlations between directors’ perceptions and citation data were weak to nonexistent. The findings confirm a hierarchy of prestige among LIS journals, but the hierarchical order differs somewhat between deans and directors.

/pdf/the-perception-of-library-and-information-science-journals-42uunexxec.pdf

The Perception of Library and Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans and ARL Library Directors: A Replication of the Kohl–Davis Study

The concept of journal ranking is explained along with the theoretical and practical significance of ranking journals. An eight-variable model for classifying journal-ranking studies is outlined. A review of LIS journal rankings of the last half-century identifies 178 published between 1952 and 1997. The majority of these used some type of citation measure, followed by rankings based on production, subjective judgment, and reading, respectively. Analysis of JASIS's, and its immediate predecessor, American Documentation's, position in these rankings, found that they were logically excluded from 18. In the remaining 160, they ranked first in 20 and in the top five in 88. It is noted that JASIS also appears on many lists of “core” LIS journals, and that it has been the object of investigation in numerous studies.

JASIS and library and information science journal rankings: a review and analysis of the last half-century

This column examines the 80/20 rule, also termed a Pareto distribution, and explains these terms' historical origins. The column focuses on this pattern in the use of print serials, downloads from electronic databases, and citations to journals. The rule's relationship to Bradford's Law is explored, and some of the research pertaining to the 80/20 rule is reviewed. The pattern's utility for defining the core collection and serials collection management is discussed, whereas a number of limitations are pointed out. Some questions for further research are suggested. It is concluded that the 80/20 ratio (80% of use is derived from 20% of the titles), when found as an approximate pattern, is a valid method for determining the core concept in journal collection management.

The “80/20 Rule” and Core Journals

This article presents a case study investigating the coverage completeness of the Institute for Scientific Information’s citation data for specific authors, based on analysis of this author’s lifetime citation record, which was compiled through the ISI database, searching the literature for nearly fifteen years, and through various Web search engines It was found that (with self-citations disregarded) the ISI captured 288 percent of the total citations, 422 percent of print citations, 203 percent of citations from outside the United States, and 23 percent of non-English citations The definition and classification of Web citations are discussed It is suggested that librarians and faculty should not rely solely on ISI author citation counts, especially when demonstration of international impact is important

/pdf/citation-autobiography-an-investigation-of-isi-database-12zqhhds81.pdf

Citation Autobiography: An Investigation of ISI Database Coverage in Determining Author Citedness

The purpose of this communication is to discuss a widely used measure of journal impact that is defined by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and available for thousands of journals in the Journal Citation Reports. The name of the measure is the impact factor. A major issue, addressed in this article, concerns what impact factor really measures. We will argue that ISI's impact factor is misnamed and misused, and will suggest an alternative name and interpretation of the measure. We will also suggest a new measure to assess the impact of a given journal using citations.

Thomas E. Nisonger

Papers

The Perception of Library and Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans and ARL Library Directors: A Replication of the Kohl–Davis Study

JASIS and library and information science journal rankings: a review and analysis of the last half-century

The “80/20 Rule” and Core Journals

Citation Autobiography: An Investigation of ISI Database Coverage in Determining Author Citedness

ISI's impact factor as misnomer: a proposed new measure to assess journal impact