عنوان مقاله [English]
Purpose: To identify the patterns and trends of the Iranian LIS Studies and the changes made in the Intellectual structure of this field.
Methodology: Using the keyword co-occurrence method and the knowledge Domain Visualization approach, the intellectual structure of LIS has been studied. The research community is all research papers and articles of conferences that have been published by Iranian researchers in the period from 1970 to 2016 in the LIS journals and indexed on the WOS. Citespace software was used to map and analyze the network of Iranian studies.
Findings: Cluster analysis led to the identification of 10 clusters. Overall, it was found that the main focal points of the research are two general titles of "science studies" and "information studies", where the share of each of these two research centers from all identified clusters was 4, 5 Cluster. The largest cluster, according to the number of nodes, was "User Studies and Systems" and the oldest cluster based on the average year of formation, "scientific collaboration." The results of the analysis of the keywords burstness, "Internet", "World Wide Web", "User studies" and "Search engines" respectively, have attracted the most attention of the researchers of information science and science and are among the hot topics in the time series investigated.
Conclusion: The network of the key words of Iran LIS studies is immature; so that from the total of 257 nodes present in the analysis process, 71 nodes were located between 2000 and 2009. One of the important points in reflecting on the analysis of the central nodes of the keyword network is related to the low centrality scores of the word “library” in spite of having high occurrence frequency; which may be interpreted as the reduction of pivotal role of this concept in the LIS literature.
Astrom, F. (2002). Visualizing library and information science concept spaces through keyword and citation based maps and clusters. In H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen, & P. Vakkari (Eds.), Emerging frameworks and methods: Processings of the fourth international conference on conceptions of library and information science (CoLIS4), (pp. 185–197). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22 (2), 191-235.
Capurro, R., & Hjørland, B. (2003). The concept of information. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37 (1), 343-411.
Chang, Y. W., Huang, M., & Lin, C. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105 (3), 2071–2087.
Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), 101, 5303-5310. Retrieved September 11, 2018, from http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/101/suppl_1/5303.full.pdf
Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (3), 359-377.
Chen, C. (2013). Mapping scientific frontiers. London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3 (3), 191-209.
Hu, C. P., Hu, J. M., Deng, S. L., & Liu, Y. (2013). A co-word analysis of Library and Information Science in China. Scientometrics, 97 (2), 369-382.
Janssens, F., Glänzel, W., & De Moor, B. (2008). A hybrid mapping of information science. Scientometrics, 75 (3), 607-631.
Janssens, F., Leta, J., Glänzel, W., & De Moor, B. (2006). Towards mapping library and information science. Information Processing & Management, 42 (6), 1614-1642.
Lee, P. C., & Su, H. N. (2010). Investigating the structure of regional innovation system research through keyword co-occurrence and social network analysis. Innovation: Management, Policy, & Practice, 12 (1), 26-40.
McCain, K. W. (1984). Longitudinal Author Cocitation Mapping: the changing structure of macroeconomics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 35 (6), 351-369.
McCain, K. W. (1986). Cocited author mapping as a valid representation of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37 (3), 111-122.
McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (6), 433-443.
Milojevic, S., Sugimoto, K. R., Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2011). The cognitive structure of library and information science: Analysis of article title words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (10), 1933-1953.
Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (4), 265-269.
Small, H., Griffith, B. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4 (1), 17–40.
Sugimoto, C. R., Chaoqun, N., Russell, T. G., & Bychowski, B. (2011). Academic genealogy as an indicator of interdisciplinarity: an examination of dissertation networks in library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (9), 1808-1828.
Tonta, Y., & Düzyol, G. (2010). Mapping the structure and evolution of research methods in library and information science. Retrieved June 25, 2017, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d653/b6dc768991ce02ee4a6c9cbe0a0869b53966.pdf
White, H. D., Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author co-citation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32 (3), 163-172.
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.