Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)
Characterizing the structure of knowledge, the evolution of research topics, and the emergence of topics has always been an important part of information science (IS). Our previous scientometric review of IS provided a snapshot of this fast-growing field up to the end of 2008. This new study aims to identify emerging trends and new developments appearing in the subsequent 7574 articles published in 10 IS journals between 2009 and 2016, including 20,960 references. The results of a document co-citation analysis show great changes in the research topics in the IS domain. The positions of certain core topics found in the previous study, namely, information retrieval, webometrics, and citation behavior, have been replaced by scientometric indicators (H-index), citation analysis (citation performance and bibliometrics), scientific collaboration, and information behavior in the most recent period of 2009–2016. Dual-map overlays of journals show that the knowledge base of IS research has shifted considerably since 2010, with emerging topics including scientific evaluation indicators, altmetrics, science mapping and visualization, bibliometrics, citation analysis, and scientific collaboration.
KeywordsInformation science Information visualization CiteSpace Co-citation analysis
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers. This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China under Grant 17BGL031.
- Chen, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 334–351.Google Scholar
- De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
- Ibekwe-SanJuan, F. (2009). Information science in the web era: A term-based approach to domain mapping. In Annual meeting of american society for information science and technology, November 6–11, 2009, Vancouver, Canada (pp 1–13).Google Scholar
- Jassens, F., Glenisson, P., Glänzel, W., & De Moor, B. (2005). Co-clustering approaches to integrate lexical and bibliographical information. ISSI 2005. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Vols. 1 and 2(pp. 284–289).Google Scholar
- Klavans, R., Persson, O., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Coco at the copacabana: Introducing co-cited author pair co-citation (Coco) analysis. In Proceedings of the international conference on scientometrics and informetrics. Rio de JaneiroBRAZIL, 2009.Google Scholar
- Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.Google Scholar
- Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control—Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Report for the Surf Foundation.Google Scholar