Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

From the United States to China:The Transfer of Research Centres in Information Science


Affiliations
1 School of Information Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Waihuan East Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China
2 College of Economics and Management, Dalian University, Dalian 116622 and Dalian Economic Technological Development Zone, Dalian 116622, China
 

This study not only analyses the centres of research in Information Science (IS), including the migration of central topics and central countries, but also analyses the relationship between the shifting of centres of research and their transformation. In addition, this study explores the relationship between the formation of the centre of research and the academic influence of the country on IS itself. We collected 25,150 articles, including 313,293 references about citation analysis, from databases SCI-E and SSCI between 1977 and 2016 as our data source. The following findings were obtained through this study: the transfer (transfer time) of central research topics in the IS domain has accelerated, from 12 to 8 years between 1980 and 1990, to 6 to 4 years between 2000 and 2010, and to 3 years between 2011 and 2016. The number of central research topics has also grown, from one between 1997 and 2006, to two from 2006 to 2013 to three from 2013 to 2016. The geographical centres of IS research were the US and Britain between the 1970s and 1980s, but gradually migrated through neighbouring countries, and finally to Asia by 2000. China, which became the centre of research for IS in 2005 for the first time, has been ranked first since 2011. In addition, countries acting as centres of research enjoy not only a high output of literature but also great academic influence. The theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

Keywords

CiteSpace Software, Information Science, Scientometric Analysis, Transfer of Research Centre.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Thelwall, M. and Maflahi, N., How important is computing technology for library and information science research? Lib. Inform. Sci. Res., 2015, 37(1), 40-50.

  • Tsay, M. Y., Knowledge flow out of the domain of information science: a bibliometric and citation analysis study. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(1), 487-502.

  • Chu, H., Research methods in library and information science: a content analysis. Lib. Inform. Sci. Res., 2015, 37(1), 36-41.

  • Chen, C. M., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F. and Hou, J. H., The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a multiple-perspective co-citation analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2010, 61(7), 1386-1409.

  • Yuasa, M., Center of scientific activity: its shift from the 16th to the 20th century. Jpn. Stud. Hist. Sci., 1962, 1(1), 57-75.

  • Zhao, H. D., Introduction to Scientific Competence, Science Press, Beijing, 1984.

  • Zhao, H. Z. and Jiang, G. H., Shifting of world’s scientific centre and scientists social ages. Scientometrics, 1985, 8(1-2), 59-80.

  • Liang, L. M., Feng, Y. and Wu, Y. S., Shifts in the world science centre: space-time characteristics and disciplinary analysis. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev., 2000, 25(3), 227-232.

  • Levitt, J. M. and Thelwall, M., Long term productivity and collaboration in information science. Scientometrics, 2016, 108(3), 1103-1117.

  • Zhao, D. Z. and Strotmann, A., The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006-2010: an author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 2014, 65(5), 995-1006.

  • White, H. D. and McCain, K. W., Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science 1972-1995. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 1998, 49(4), 327-355.

  • Astrom, F., Changes in the LIS research front: time-sliced co-citation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2007, 58(7), 947-957.

  • White, H. D., Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2003, 54(5), 423-434.

  • Zhao, D. Z. and Strotmann, A., Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996-2005: introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2008, 59(13), 2070-2086.

  • Zhao, D. Z. and Strotmann, A., Information science during the first decade of the web: an enriched author co-citation analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2008, 59(6), 916-937.

  • Zhao, D. Z. and Strotmann, A., Comparing all-author and firstauthor co-citation analyses of information science. J. Inform., 2008, 2(3), 229-239.

  • Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., Information Science in the web era: a term-based approach to domain mapping, In Annual Meeting of American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vancouver, Canada, 6-11 November 2009, pp. 1-13.

  • Klavans, R., Persson, O. and Boyack, K. W., 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 Janeiro, Brazil, 2009.

  • Yang, S., Han, R., Wolfram, D. and Zhao, Y., Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006-2015): introducing author keyword coupling analysis. J. Informetr., 2016, 10(1), 132-150.

  • White, H. D. and Griffith, B. C., Author co-citation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 1981, 32(3), 163-171.

  • Janssens, F. et al., Towards mapping library and information science. Inform. Proc. Manage., 2006, 42(6), 1614-1642.

  • Janssens, F. et al., A hybrid mapping of information science. Scientometrics, 2008, 75(3), 607-631.

  • Besselaar, P. V. D. and Heimeriks, G., Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: a method and an exploratory case study. Scientometrics, 2006, 68(3), 377-393.

  • Milojevi’c, S., Sugimoto, C. R., Yan, E. and Ding, Y., The cognitive structure of library and information science: analysis of article title words. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2011, 62(10), 1933- 1953.

  • Jeong, Y. K., Song, M. and Ding, Y., Content-based author co-citation analysis. J. Informetr., 2014, 8(1), 197-211.

  • Chang, Y. W., Huang, M. H. and Lin, C. W., Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 2015, 105(3), 2071-2087.

  • Lei, L. and Yan, S., Readability and citations in information science: evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003-2012). Scientometrics, 2016, 108(3), 1155-1169.

  • Khasseh, A. A., Soheili, F., Moghaddam, H. S. and Chelak, A. M., Intellectual structure of knowledge in iMetrics: a co-word analysis. Inform. Proc. Manage., 2017, 53(3), 705-720.

  • Yang, S. and Wang, F., Visualizing information science: author direct citation analysis in China and around the world. J. Inform., 2015, 9(1), 208-225.

  • Chen, C. M., CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2006, 57(3), 359-377.

  • Chen, C. M., Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J. Data Inform. Sci., 2017, 2(2), 1-40.

  • Bradley, E. S., Roberts, D. A. and Dennison, P. E., Google Earth and Google Fusion Tables in support of time-critical collaboration: mapping the deepwater horizon oil spill with the AVIRIS airborne spectrometer. Earth Sci. Inform., 2011, 4(4), 169-179.

  • Signore, A., Mapping and sharing agro-biodiversity using Open Data Kit and Google Fusion Tables. Comput. Electron. Agric., 2016, 127, 87-91.

  • Green, L. Y., Mikhailova, E. A., Post, C. J., Darnault, C. C. J. G., Bridges, W. C. and Schlautman, M. A., A cloud-based spatialtemporal inventory for sustainable urban soil management. Urban Ecosyst., 2016, 19(2), 811-822.

  • Mingers, J. and Leydesdorff, L., A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2015, 246(1), 1-19.

  • Bornmann, L. and Haunschild, R., How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(3), 1405-1422.

  • Saif, H., He, Y. L., Fernandez, M. and Alani, H., Contextual semantics for sentiment analysis of Twitter. Inf. Process. Manage., 2016, 52(1), 5-19.

  • Ozdikis, O., Ogurtuzun, H. and Karagoz, P., Evidential estimation of event locations in microblogs using the Dempster-Shafer theory. Inf. Process. Manage., 2016, 52(6), 1227-1246.

  • Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R. and Lariviere, V., Tweets as impact indicators: examining the implications of automated ‘bot’ accounts on Twitter. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2016, 67(1), 232-238.

  • Laylavi, F., Rajabifard, A. and Kalantari, M., Event relatedness assessment of Twitter messages for emergency response. Inform. Proc. Manage., 2017, 53(1), 266-280.

  • Klavans, R. and Boyack, K. W., Using global mapping to create more accurate document-level maps of research fields. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2011, 62(1), 1-18.

  • Hirsch, J. E., An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple co-authorship. Scientometrics, 2005, 85(3): 741-754.


Abstract Views: 238

PDF Views: 81




  • From the United States to China:The Transfer of Research Centres in Information Science

Abstract Views: 238  |  PDF Views: 81

Authors

Jianhua Hou
School of Information Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Waihuan East Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China
Xiucai Yang
College of Economics and Management, Dalian University, Dalian 116622 and Dalian Economic Technological Development Zone, Dalian 116622, China

Abstract


This study not only analyses the centres of research in Information Science (IS), including the migration of central topics and central countries, but also analyses the relationship between the shifting of centres of research and their transformation. In addition, this study explores the relationship between the formation of the centre of research and the academic influence of the country on IS itself. We collected 25,150 articles, including 313,293 references about citation analysis, from databases SCI-E and SSCI between 1977 and 2016 as our data source. The following findings were obtained through this study: the transfer (transfer time) of central research topics in the IS domain has accelerated, from 12 to 8 years between 1980 and 1990, to 6 to 4 years between 2000 and 2010, and to 3 years between 2011 and 2016. The number of central research topics has also grown, from one between 1997 and 2006, to two from 2006 to 2013 to three from 2013 to 2016. The geographical centres of IS research were the US and Britain between the 1970s and 1980s, but gradually migrated through neighbouring countries, and finally to Asia by 2000. China, which became the centre of research for IS in 2005 for the first time, has been ranked first since 2011. In addition, countries acting as centres of research enjoy not only a high output of literature but also great academic influence. The theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

Keywords


CiteSpace Software, Information Science, Scientometric Analysis, Transfer of Research Centre.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv116%2Fi3%2F422-436