IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v106y2016i2d10.1007_s11192-015-1791-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of citation distributions of journals and books on the topic “information society”

Author

Listed:
  • Ming-yueh Tsay

    (National Chengchi University)

  • Tung-mei Shen

    (National Chengchi University)

  • Ming-hsin Liang

    (National Chengchi University)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore and compare citations and discipline distribution in journal articles and books in the field of information society. By investigating citations, co-citation analysis and social network analysis, this study highlights the major disciplines in the information society field, identifies the highly-cited works and the relationships among them, and analyzes the multidisciplinary nature of the field. A total of 84 selective documents related to the study of information society were collected. The Web of Science, including Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, and Book Citation Index, was selected to search for citation and co-citation data from 2005 to 2012. A co-citation matrix was built and subject clusters were determined. Moreover, co-citation data acquired from a social network analysis tool, UCINET, were put through centrality analysis to explore the influence of each document in the field of information society. Conclusions were made based on research results.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming-yueh Tsay & Tung-mei Shen & Ming-hsin Liang, 2016. "A comparison of citation distributions of journals and books on the topic “information society”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 475-508, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1791-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1791-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1791-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1791-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henry Kreuzman, 2001. "A co-citation analysis of representative authors in philosophy: Examining the relationship between epistemologists and philosophers of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(3), pages 525-539, July.
    2. William Paisley, 1990. "An oasis where many trails cross: The improbable cocitation networks of a multidiscipline," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 459-468, September.
    3. Chaomei Chen & Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan & Jianhua Hou, 2010. "The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(7), pages 1386-1409, July.
    4. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    5. Katherine W. McCain, 1990. "Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 433-443, September.
    6. Henry Kreuzman, 2001. "A co-citation analysis of representative authors in philosophy: Examining the relationship between epistemologists and philosophers of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(3), pages 525-539, January.
    7. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    8. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2009. "Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(10), pages 2107-2118, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    2. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Evaluating wider impacts of books via fine-grained mining on citation literatures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1923-1948, December.
    3. Zhou, Qingqing & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2021. "Impacts towards a comprehensive assessment of the book impact by integrating multiple evaluation sources," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sandra Miguel & Félix Moya-Anegón & Víctor Herrero-Solana, 2008. "A new approach to institutional domain analysis: Multilevel research fronts structure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(3), pages 331-344, March.
    2. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    3. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    4. Jianhua Hou, 2017. "Exploration into the evolution and historical roots of citation analysis by referenced publication year spectroscopy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1437-1452, March.
    5. John McLevey & Alexander V. Graham & Reid McIlroy-Young & Pierson Browne & Kathryn S. Plaisance, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 331-349, October.
    6. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    7. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.
    8. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Philip J. Purnell, 2014. "The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 841-852, February.
    9. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    10. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    11. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    12. Milojević, Staša & Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Larivière, Vincent & Thelwall, Mike & Ding, Ying, 2014. "The role of handbooks in knowledge creation and diffusion: A case of science and technology studies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 693-709.
    13. Mingkun Wei & Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, 2020. "Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2401-2420, December.
    14. Ma, Chao-Qun & Lei, Yu-Tian & Ren, Yi-Shuai & Chen, Xun-Qi & Wang, Yi-Ran & Narayan, Seema, 2024. "Systematic analysis of the blockchain in the energy sector: Trends, issues, and future directions," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2).
    15. Pinho, Celso R.A. & Pinho, Maria Luiza C.A. & Deligonul, Seyda Z. & Tamer Cavusgil, S., 2022. "The agility construct in the literature: Conceptualization and bibliometric assessment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 517-532.
    16. Diana Reader & David Watkins, 2006. "The Social and Collaborative Nature of Entrepreneurship Scholarship: A Co–Citation and Perceptual Analysis," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(3), pages 417-441, May.
    17. Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez & Belén González-Díaz, 2019. "Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 173-208, October.
    18. Markus Gmür, 2003. "Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(1), pages 27-57, January.
    19. Özgür Özmen Uysal, 2010. "Business Ethics Research with an Accounting Focus: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1988 to 2007," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 137-160, April.
    20. Truyken L. B. Ossenblok & Tim C. E. Engels, 2015. "Edited books in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Characteristics and collaboration analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 219-237, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1791-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.