TARU PUBLICATIONS
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management cover

COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management

(Since 2007)
Hybrid ·Peer-reviewed·ISSN (Online): 2168-930X·ISSN (Print): 0973-7766

WoS  JIF 2026 : 0.6 (Q3)

Powered by:Powered by

Half-Yearly Journal: Publishes research and articles on scientometrics and information management, including bibliometric analysis and quality assurance models.

Issues up to 2022 co-published with and available at:Taylor & Francis Online
EDITOR-CJSIM@tarupublications.com
Taru Online First Current IssueBrowse all Issues
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management
Open Access Research Article

Visualizing intellectual patterns in LIS research : A bibliometric mapping based on major LIS journals that are intersecting with computer science

* , , , ,

* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details

pp. 179–196Vol. 18Issue 2December 2024DOI: 10.47974/CJSIM-2023-0103XML
Published Online:
21 Mar 2025
Article type:
Research Article
Language:
EN
Article no.:
CJSIM-2023-0103
Pages:
179–196

Abstract

Library and Information Science (LIS) research has gained increasing importance with the advent of information technology, and the field has been transformed by the rapid advances in this area. This study focuses on the bibliometric mapping of scholarly publications in major LIS journals that intersect with Computer Science (CS), as highlighted in scientific databases. The aim is to uncover the relationships between these two domains and explore the intellectual patterns within these clusters of knowledge. To achieve this, we analyzed the quantifiable characteristics of 14,812 publications from five leading LIS journals, extracted from the Web of Science, covering a period of over two decades (2000-2022). The findings provide valuable insights through visualization maps created using the Biblioshiny application (Bibliometrix package in R), VOSviewer, and Microsoft PowerBI tools. Title and keyword-based analyses were performed to identify the prominent areas of research. An in-depth effort was made to examine possible interactions between LIS and CS. This study stated that, based on articles over five major journals in the fields of LIS and CS, the following 21 key topics have emerged in the relevant areas; academia, methodology and analysis, citation, patent, funding/charge, open acess/predatory/copyright, actions, applications, tools and sources, authors, metrics, indexing and rankings/awards, research, rules, theory and law, document types and objects, information and knowledge, library science, information science and management, country/region-based topics, publication, effects on scientific productivity, and technology. However, in recent years, subjects like machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence, neural networks, social media tools, digital libraries, and library management systems have gained significant attention, particularly in journals. This study provides a comprehensive overview of publishing dynamics and emerging research trends within these domains.

Keywords

Knowledge mappingScientific visualizationPublishing dynamicsIntellectual patternsLIS vs computer scienceBibliometrics

References

[1] M. A. Mabe, “Scholarly Publishing,” European Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3–22, Feb. 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1062798709000532.
[2] P. Sorokowski, E. Kulczycki, A. Sorokowska, and K. Pisanski, “Predatory journals recruit fake editor,” Nature, vol. 543, no. 7646, pp. 481–483, Mar. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/543481a.
[3] P. McDermott, Politics and Scholarship. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994.
[4] E. W. Dunn and A. C. Weidman, “Building a science of spending: Lessons from the past and directions for the future,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 172–178, Jan. 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.003.
[5] B. Statzner and V. H. Resh, “Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences,” Freshwater Biology, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 2639–2653, Aug. 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02484.x.
[6] B. D. Lund and T. Wang, “An analysis of research methods utilized in five top, practitioner-oriented LIS journals from 1980 to 2019,” Journal of Documentation, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, Apr. 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-10-2020-0171.
[7] Google Scholar, “Library & Information Science - Google Scholar Metrics,” Google.com, 2019. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_libraryinformationscience (accessed Dec. 01, 2024). 
[8] K. Chaddha and U. Kanjilal, “Transforming Academic Libraries into Information Commons: A Proposed Model,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 5–37, Mar. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30004.
[9] O. C. Eje and T. Y. Dushu, “Transforming Library and Information Services Delivery Using Innovation Technologies,” Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), vol. 1, Sep. 2018, Accessed: Dec. 01, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2036
[10] B.C. Bjork and Z. Turk, “How Scientists Retrieve Publications: An Empirical Study of How the Internet Is Overtaking Paper Media,” The Journal of Electronic Publishing, vol. 6, no. 2, Dec. 2000, doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0006.202.
[11] D. J. Solomon, “The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age,” The Journal of Electronic Publishing, vol. 10, no. 1, Jan. 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107.
[12] Q. Galbraith, E. Smart, S. D. Smith, and M. Reed, “Who Publishes in Top-Tier Library Science Journals? An Analysis by Faculty Status and Tenure,” College & Research Libraries, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 724–735, Sep. 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.5.724.
[13] W. H. Walters and E. I. Wilder, “Worldwide contributors to the literature of library and information science: top authors, 2007–2012,” Scientometrics, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 301–327, Dec. 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1519-9.
[14] S. G. Grace, F. S. S. Wiepking, and van Zundert, “Hot topics in anaesthesia: a bibliometric analysis of five high-impact journals from 2010–2019,” Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 10, pp. 8749–8759, Aug. 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04129-0.
[15] T. C. Bearman, “Information transforming society: challenges for the year 2000*,” Information Services & Use, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 217–223, Jul. 1992, doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/isu-1992-12303.
[16] F. Malekabadizadeh, F. Shokraneh, and A. Hosseini, “The Role of Library and Information Science Education in National Development,” Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), vol. 1, May 2009, Accessed: Feb. 09, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/259
[17] J. M. Hurd, “The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 51, no. 14, pp. 1279–1283, 2000, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999%3C::aid-asi1044%3E3.0.co;2-1.
[18] M. Damar, “Metaverse Shape of Your Life for Future: A bibliometric snapshot,” Journal of Metaverse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Dec. 2021, Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jmv/issue/67581/1051371
[19] Y. Zhou, F. Dong, Y. Liu, Z. Li, J. Du, and L. Zhang, “Forecasting emerging technologies using data augmentation and deep learning,” Scientometrics, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 1–29, Jan. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03351-6.
[20] L. Wang, “Twinning data science with information science in schools of library and information science,” Journal of Documentation, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1243–1257, Oct. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-02-2018-0036.
[21] A. Kacem, J. W. Flatt, and P. Mayr, “Tracking self-citations in academic publishing,” Scientometrics, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 1157–1165, Mar. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03413-9. 
[22] C. S. Lee, H. Osop, D. H.-L. Goh, and G. Kelni, “Making sense of comments on YouTube educational videos: a self-directed learning perspective,” Online Information Review, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 611–625, Sep. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-09-2016-0274.
[23] G. S. Patience, F. Galli, P. A. Patience, and D. C. Boffito, “Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories,” PLOS ONE, vol. 14, no. 1, p. e0198117, Jan. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198117.
[24] J. Pal and S. Sarkar, “Understanding research productivity in the realm of evaluative scientometrics,” Annals of Library and Information Studies, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 67–69, 2020, Accessed: Dec. 01, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/bitstream/123456789/54665/1/ALIS%2067(1)%2067-69.pdf
[25] J. K. Pal, “Scientometric dimensions of cryptographic research,” Scientometrics, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 179–202, Aug. 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1661-z.
[26] H. Chen, X. Song, Q. Jin, and X. Wang, “Network dynamics in university-industry collaboration: a collaboration-knowledge dual-layer network perspective,” Scientometrics, no. 127, pp. 6637–6660, Mar. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04330-9.
[27] J. Wang, “Unpacking the Matthew effect in citations,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 329–339, Apr. 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.006.
[28] M. Marrone, “Application of entity linking to identify research fronts and trends,” Scientometrics, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 357–379, Nov. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03274-x.
[29] J. K. Pal, “Administering a cryptology centre by means of scientometric indicators,” Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 97–123, Jun. 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2016.1177947.
[30] C. Schlögl and W. G. Stock, “Practitioners and academics as authors and readers: the case of LIS journals,” Journal of Documentation, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 643–666, Sep. 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810899691.
[31] P. Jacsó, “Open access ready reference suites,” Online Information Review, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 737–743, Nov. 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610716207. 
[32] B.C. Björk, M. Laakso, P. Welling, and P. Paetau, “Anatomy of green open access,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 237–250, Nov. 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22963.
[33] D. De Filippo and P. Sastrón-Toledo, “Influence of research on open science in the public policy sphere,” Scientometrics, vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 1995–2017, Feb. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04645-1.
[34] S. B. Demir, “Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1296–1311, Nov. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008.
[35] T. F. Frandsen, “Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers,” Scientometrics, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 1513–1528, Sep. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x. 

Views: 242Downloads: 45Citations: 0