Yu-Wei Chang

A study of interdisciplinarity in information science: using direct citation and co-authorship analysis

This study uses two bibliometric methods, direct citation and co-authorship, to investigate the interdisciplinary changes in information sciences during 1978—2007. The disciplines of references and co-authors from five information science journals were analysed. Furthermore, Brillouin’s Index was adopted to measure the degree of interdisciplinarity. The study revealed that information science researchers have cited the publications of library and information science (LIS) most frequently. The co-authors of information science articles are also primarily from the discipline of LIS, but the percentage of references to LIS is much higher. This indicates that information science researchers mainly rely on publications in LIS, and they often produce scientific papers with researchers from LIS. The discipline rankings generated by direct citation and co-authorship show a significant consistency via Spearman’s correlation coefficient test. The interdisciplinary degree of information science has displayed growth. In particular, the degree of interdisciplinarity for co-authors has grown.

A comparative study of interdisciplinary changes between information science and library science

This study employs the method of direct citation to analyze and compare the interdisciplinary characteristics of the two disciplines of library science and information science during the period of 1978–2007. Based on the research generated by five library science journals and five information science journals, library science researchers tend to cite publications from library and information science (LIS), education, business/management, sociology, and psychology, while researchers of information science tend to cite more publications from LIS, general science, computer science, technology, and medicine. This means that the disciplines with larger contributions to library science are almost entirely different from those contributing to information science. In addition, researchers of library science frequently cite publications from LIS; the rate is as high as 65.61%, which is much higher than the rate for information science, 49.50%. However, a decreasing trend in the percentage of LIS in library science indicates that library science researchers tend to cite more publications from non-LIS disciplines. A rising trend in the proportion of references to education sources is reported for library science articles, while a rising trend in the proportion of references to computer science sources has been found for information science articles. In addition, this study applies an interdisciplinary indicator, Brillouin’s Index, to measurement of the degree of interdisciplinarity. The results confirm that the trend toward interdisciplinarity in both information science and library science has risen over the years, although the degree of interdisciplinarity in information science is higher than that in library science.

A comparison of citation contexts between natural sciences and social sciences and humanities

This study uses the method of citation context analysis to compare differences in citation contexts, including cited concepts and citation functions, between natural sciences (NS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), based on articles citing Little Science, Big Science (LSBS) published between 1963 and 2010. The findings indicate that NS and SSH researchers frequently cite LSBS as a source that is related to a specific topic and as evidence to support a claim. No significant differences were identified in the distribution of cited concepts included in LSBS, but significant differences were observed in the reasons for citing LSBS between NS and SSH citing articles. However, reverse trends were observed in the percentage of some cited concepts and citation functions between NS and SSH, which implies that subtle differences in citation behavior exist between NS and SSH researchers. In addition, each concept category has a different half-life. Concepts related to characteristics of big science and scientific collaboration have the longest half-lives.

Influence of the principle of least effort across disciplines

Abstract This study investigated the influence of the principle of least effort (PLE) introduced by Zipf in his 1949 work, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. The influence of the PLE was measured by examining articles across various disciplines published between 1950 and 2013 that cited Zipf’s original work. Our findings show that Zipf’s law was the most influential concept embedded in the original work, with the PLE being the second most cited concept. Although the PLE was the focus of Zipf’s 1949 book, its influence was much lower than that of Zipf’s law. Furthermore, Zipf’s law showed an increasing influence over time, whereas a decreasing influence was observed for the PLE. Of the 31 disciplines citing the PLE, library and information science articles cited it most, followed by psychology articles. Articles primarily cited the PLE to explain human behavior and language use. However, articles citing Zipf’s law focused on its formula.

Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors

This study investigated the external contributors of library and information science (LIS) knowledge who were unaffiliated with LIS-related institutions but published their research results in LIS journals. Differences between the contributors to library science (LS) and contributors to information science (IS) were considered. Articles published in 39 strongly LIS-oriented journals indexed in the Web of Science database between 2005 and 2014 were analyzed. The results demonstrated that 46.5% of the LIS articles were written by at least one non-LIS author; authors’ backgrounds ranged across 29 disciplines. An increasing trend was observed in degrees of interdisciplinarity of LS and IS. An increase in proportion of articles by LIS and non-LIS authors was identified in LS and IS as well. Those with medical backgrounds were the primary non-LIS authors contributing to the LS field and collaborated the most frequently with LIS authors. Those with computer science backgrounds were the most prevalent non-LIS contributors to the IS field and preferred to publish individually. A critical difference was also identified in research topics between LS and IS. The foundations of LIS and scientometrics were the largest research topics in LS and IS, respectively.

Interaction between science and technology in the field of fuel cells based on patent paper analysis

Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyse and explore the characteristics of patent–paper pairs (PPPs) in the field of fuel cells. Design/methodology/approach The authors used bibliometric analysis to analyse the bibliometric records of PPPs identified from 20,758 papers and 8,112 utility patents between 1991 and 2010. Findings The findings show that the percentages of papers and patents constituting PPPs were low, but an increasing trend was identified in the absolute number of PPPs. Researchers affiliated with research institutions were the primary contributors to PPPs. Countries with the most papers and patents had the most PPPs, exploiting the advantage of dual knowledge creation. Similar growth trends were observed in the numbers of patents approved and papers published. Patents in PPPs were typically produced earlier than the papers in PPPs. On average, patents were applied for approximately four years before papers were published, and patents were approved only approximately four months before papers were published. Research limitations/implications While the study was limited to the PPPs in the field of fuel cells, PPPs analysis can be applied to numerous fields. Originality/value PPPs indicate the coactivity of researchers involved in publishing and patenting. Although this coactivity has been studied, few studies have investigated PPPs. This study helps us better understand the characteristics of papers and patents constituting PPPs, changes in the annual numbers of papers and patents constituting PPPs, delays between papers and patents, as well as individuals, institutions and countries producing numerous PPPs.

A comparison of researcher–practitioner collaborations in library and information science, education, and sociology

This study used coauthorship analysis to investigate trends in researcher–practitioner collaborations by examining articles published between 2005 and 2014 in the disciplines of library and information science, education, and sociology. The results revealed that articles coauthored by researchers were the main type of research collaboration in these three disciplines. Articles coauthored by researchers and practitioners were the third largest type of research collaboration in all three disciplines; the percentage of such articles in library and information science (14.2%) was considerably higher than that in education (6.1%) and sociology (2.7%). A slightly decreasing trend was observed in these articles in library and information science, but a slightly increasing trend was identified in education and sociology. Regarding authorship, library and information science practitioners were more active than were education and sociology practitioners. Librarians, governmental staff, and administrators were the dominant practitioner authors of this type of article in library and information science, sociology, and education, respectively.

Analysis of coactivity in the field of fuel cells at institutional and individual levels

This study analyzed the characteristics of coactivity in the field of fuel cells at institutional and individual levels by examining Science Citation Index papers and U.S. patents between 1991 and 2010. The findings reveal that few coactive institutions or individuals adopt a balanced approach to publishing papers and filing patents. Substantial differences in productivity were observed between research institutions and companies. Research institutions focus on research and publications, whereas companies emphasize technology innovation and obtaining patents. Furthermore, the difference between research institutions and companies in productivity regarding the publishing of papers is less substantial than that regarding filing patents. Companies exhibit coactive performance that is superior to that of research institutions.