| Summary: | 博士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 圖書資訊學研究所 === 97 === This study used bibliometric methods including direct citation, bibliographic coupling and coauthorship to analyze interdisciplinary characteristics in Library and Information Science (LIS) and used Brillouin’s Index , an interdisciplinary indicator, to measure the interdisciplinary degree. In addition, the interdisciplinary characteristics in library science, information science, types of references and 10 LIS journals are compared, and interdisciplinary changes over time are tracked. Subjects were 27,678 references of 1,536 articles, 8,906 references from 1,536 citing articles which share items in their reference lists and 1,536 authors of 644 co-authored articles published in 10 LIS journals, consisting of 5 library science journals and 5 information science journals, systematic sampling 15%.
The major findings were summarized as follows. LIS literature and authors has the heaviest reliance on LIS literature and authors, following general science literature and authors. Library science has interdisciplinary characteristics distinct from information science. For example, library science is a social science-oriented discipline while information science is a natural science-oriented discipline. As for the percentage distribution of discipline, large differences in percentage distribution between the two highest ranking disciplines are obvious, and about 80％ of citations or coauthors concentrate top 5 disciplines ranked by percentage distribution of discipline. In addition, the ranking of some disciplines in humanities, social sciences and natural sciences has been raising every 10 years.
Degree of interdisciplinarity in information science is higher than library science. However, degree of interdisciplinarity in information science journals is not higher than all library science journals. Among 10 LIS journals, Library Resources & Techninical Services has the lowest degree of interdisciplinrarity, while Scientometrics has the highest degree of interdisciplinarity. In addition, a reverse relationships between the percentage distribution of citations to LIS literature and the degree of interdisciplinarity. The higher percentage distribution of citations to LIS literature or coauthor in LIS , the lower the degree of interdisciplinarity. Degree of interdisciplinarity in LIS and information science has positive growth trends, but not all the analysis results by three bibliometric methods have shown library science also has the same trends.
The number of discipline has positive growth trends in LIS, library science and information science. Further, 30 disciplines ranking in LIS, library science and information science analyzed by three bibliometric methods are obviously consistent. Especially, direct citation and bibliographic coupling has the highest consistency among three bibliometric methods. In the view of the high consistency, three bibliometrics methods can replace one another. However, the possible reason that explains different results analyzed by three bibliometric methods is the difference between bibliometric theories. It is not surprised to see the different analysis results from different samples. Comparing a reference to a co-author, it is more difficult to increase a co-author than a reference does. When applying for the three bibliometric methods, it is important to make sure the meaning of interdisciplinarity, then take proper bibiometric method. For example, co-authorship can present more practical interdisciplinary interaction, direct citation can track the information flow among literature, and bibliographic coupling can show interdisciplinary characteristics existing in core references.
In short, both library science and information science has their disciplinary nature, library science and information science should be analyzed separately to present individual interdisciplinary characteristics. Also, books and journal articles are main cited sources, book citations should be included in citations samples.
|
|---|
