Survival analysis of author keywords: An application to the library and information sciences area

"This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Peset, F, F Garzón-Farinós, LM González, X García-Massó, A Ferrer-Sapena, JL Toca-Herrera, and EA Sánchez-Pérez. 2019. "Survival Analysis of Author Keywords: An Application to the Library and Information Sciences Area." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71 (4). Wiley: 462-73. doi:10.1002/asi.24248, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24248. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving."[EN] Our purpose is to adapt a statistical method for the analysis of discrete numerical series to the keywords appearing in scientific articles of a given area. As an example, we apply our methodological approach to the study of the keywords in the Library and Information Sciences (LIS) area. Our objective is to detect the new author keywords that appear in a fixed knowledge area in the period of 1 year in order to quantify the probabilities of survival for 10 years as a function of the impact of the journals where they appeared. Many of the new keywords appearing in the LIS field are ephemeral. Actually, more than half are never used again. In general, the terms most commonly used in the LIS area come from other areas. The average survival time of these keywords is approximately 3 years, being slightly higher in the case of words that were published in journals classified in the second quartile of the area. We believe that measuring the appearance and disappearance of terms will allow understanding some relevant aspects of the evolution of a discipline, providing in this way a new bibliometric approach.Peset Mancebo, MF.; Garzón Farinós, MF.; Gonzalez, L.; García-Massó, X.; Ferrer Sapena, A.; Toca-Herrera, JL.; Sánchez Pérez, EA. (2020). Survival analysis of author keywords: An application to the library and information sciences area. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (Online). 71(4):462-473. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24248S462473714Aharony, N. (2011). Library and Information Science research areas: A content analysis of articles from the top 10 journals 2007–8. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 44(1), 27-35. doi:10.1177/0961000611424819Aizawa, A., & Kageura, K. (2003). Calculating association between technical terms based on co-occurrences in keyword lists of academic papers. Systems and Computers in Japan, 34(3), 85-95. doi:10.1002/scj.1197Athukorala, K., Hoggan, E., Lehtiö, A., Ruotsalo, T., & Jacucci, G. (2013). Information-seeking behaviors of computer scientists: Challenges for electronic literature search tools. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 1-11. doi:10.1002/meet.14505001041The View from Here. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age. doi:10.7551/mitpress/7434.003.0012Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Cunha, R. C., Varbanov, R. A., Hoh, Y. S., Knisley, M. L., & Holmes, M. A. (2015). Survival Analysis of Faculty Retention and Promotion in the Social Sciences by Gender. PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0143093. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143093Brophy, J., & Bawden, D. (2005). Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources. Aslib Proceedings, 57(6), 498-512. doi:10.1108/00012530510634235Buckland, M. K. (2012). Obsolescence in subject description. Journal of Documentation, 68(2), 154-161. doi:10.1108/00220411211209168Chang, Y.-W., Huang, M.-H., & Lin, C.-W. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2071-2087. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1762-8Chen, G., & Xiao, L. (2016). Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 212-223. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.006Cheng, F.-F., Huang, Y.-W., Yu, H.-C., & Wu, C.-S. (2018). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence and social network analysis. Library Hi Tech, 36(4), 636-650. doi:10.1108/lht-01-2018-0004Colley, A., & Maltby, J. (2008). Impact of the Internet on our lives: Male and female personal perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2005-2013. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.002Dehdarirad, T., Villarroya, A., & Barrios, M. (2014). Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 101(1), 273-290. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1327-2Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 37(6), 817-842. doi:10.1016/s0306-4573(00)00051-0Dotsika, F., & Watkins, A. (2017). Identifying potentially disruptive trends by means of keyword network analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 114-127. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.020Figuerola, C. G., García Marco, F. J., & Pinto, M. (2017). Mapping the evolution of library and information science (1978–2014) using topic modeling on LISA. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1507-1535. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2432-9Gil-Leiva, I., & Alonso-Arroyo, A. (2007). Keywords given by authors of scientific articles in database descriptors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1175-1187. doi:10.1002/asi.20595Halevi, G., & Moed, H. F. (2013). The thematic and conceptual flow of disciplinary research: A citation context analysis of thejournal of informetrics, 2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(9), 1903-1913. doi:10.1002/asi.22897Michael Hall, C. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32(1), 16-27. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.07.001Han H. Gui J. &Xu S.(2014).Revealing research themes and their evolutionary trends using bibliometric data based on strategic diagrams (pp. 653–659).https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCC-C.2013.121Hjørland, B. (2000). Library and information science: practice, theory, and philosophical basis. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 501-531. doi:10.1016/s0306-4573(99)00038-2Hjørland B. (2017).Library and information science (LIS). In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization. Retrieved fromhttp://www.isko.org/cyclo/lis.Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199507)46:63.0.co;2-yHu, 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. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1076-7Kevork, E. K., & Vrechopoulos, A. P. (2009). CRM literature: conceptual and functional insights by keyword analysis. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(1), 48-85. doi:10.1108/02634500910928362Khan, G. F., & Wood, J. (2015). Information technology management domain: emerging themes and keyword analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 959-972. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1712-5Lee, S. (2016). A Study on Research Trends in Public Library Research in Korea Using Keyword Networks. Libri, 66(4). doi:10.1515/libri-2016-0052Leung, X. Y., Sun, J., & Bai, B. (2017). Bibliometrics of social media research: A co-citation and co-word analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 66, 35-45. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.06.012Li, M. (2018). Classifying and ranking topic terms based on a novel approach: role differentiation of author keywords. Scientometrics, 116(1), 77-100. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2741-7Liu, J., Tian, J., Kong, X., Lee, I., & Xia, F. (2018). Two decades of information systems: a bibliometric review. Scientometrics, 118(2), 617-643. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2974-5McClure, C. R., & Bishop, A. (1989). The Status of Research in Library/Information Science: Guarded Optimism. College & Research Libraries, 50(2), 127-143. doi:10.5860/crl_50_02_127Mela, C. F., Roos, J., & Deng, Y. (2013). Invited Paper—A Keyword History of Marketing Science. Marketing Science, 32(1), 8-18. doi:10.1287/mksc.1120.0764Milojević, S., Sugimoto, C. 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. doi:10.1002/asi.21602Niu, X., & Hemminger, B. M. (2011). A study of factors that affect the information-seeking behavior of academic scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 336-353. doi:10.1002/asi.21669Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615-631. doi:10.1177/1745691612459058O’Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., & Ananiadou, S. (2015). Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews, 4(1). doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-5Onyancha, O. B. (2018). Forty-Five Years of LIS Research Evolution, 1971–2015: An Informetrics Study of the Author-Supplied Keywords. Publishing Research Quarterly, 34(3), 456-470. doi:10.1007/s12109-018-9590-3Peset F. Garzón‐Farinos F. González L. García‐Massó X. Ferrer‐Sapena A. Toca‐Herrera J. &Sánchez‐Perez E. (2018f). Supplementary material S6. Survival analysis (Porter Stemmer method). Retrieved fromhttps://figshare.com/s/ec0e34e0aebf5df48a7bRadhakrishnan, S., Erbis, S., Isaacs, J. A., & Kamarthi, S. (2017). Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0172778. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172778Rayward, W. B. (2005). The historical development of information infrastructures and the dissemination of knowledge: A personal reflection. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 31(4), 19-22. doi:10.1002/bult.1720310407Runkler T.A.&Bezdek J.C.(2000).Automatic keyword extraction with relational clustering and Levenshtein distances. Ninth IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems. FUZZ‐ IEEE 2000 (Cat. No.00CH37063). Vol.2 (pp.636–640).https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZY.2000.839067Santos, J. B., & Irizo, F. J. O. (2005). Modelling citation age data with right censoring. Scientometrics, 62(3), 329-342. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0025-5Scimago Journal & Country Rank. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.scimagojr.com/Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1993). It’s About Time: Using Discrete-Time Survival Analysis to Study Duration and the Timing of Events. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18(2), 155-195. doi:10.3102/10769986018002155Su, H.-N., & Lee, P.-C. (2010). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: a first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics, 85(1), 65-79. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0259-8SUN, J. (1997). REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF INTERVAL-CENSORED FAILURE TIME DATA. Statistics in Medicine, 16(5), 497-504. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970315)16:53.0.co;2-jTang, R. (2005). Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 54-63. doi:10.1002/meet.1450410107Tuomaala, O., Järvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (2014). Evolution of library and information science, 1965-2005: Content analysis of journal articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1446-1462. doi:10.1002/asi.23034Uddin, S., & Khan, A. (2016). The impact of author-selected keywords on citation counts. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1166-1177. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.004Vakkari, P. (1994). Library and Information Science: Its Content and Scope. Advances in Librarianship, 1-55. doi:10.1108/s0065-2830(1994)0000018003Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2015). Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007-2012. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1487-1506. doi:10.1002/asi.23448Wang, M., & Chai, L. (2018). Three new bibliometric indicators/approaches derived from keyword analysis. Scientometrics, 116(2), 721-750. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2768-9Wang, Z.-Y., Li, G., Li, C.-Y., & Li, A. (2011). Research on the semantic-based co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 90(3), 855-875. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0563-yXu, J., Bu, Y., Ding, Y., Yang, S., Zhang, H., Yu, C., & Sun, L. (2018). Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention. Scientometrics, 117(2), 973-995. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2897-1Yang, S., Han, R., Wolfram, D., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 132-150. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.12.003Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z., & Duan, Z. (2015). Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 967-972. doi:10.1002/asi.2343

The Use of Academic Library Resources and Services by Undergraduate in Ibadan North Local Government of Nigeria

Libraries provide resources for knowledge acquisition, recreation, personal interests and inter-personal relationships for all categories of users. It enables the individual to obtain spiritual, inspirational, and recreational activities through reading, and therefore the opportunity of interacting with the society’s wealth and accumulated knowledge. This study examined the undergraduate students’ use of University library services and resources. It was affirmed the undergraduate utilized the University Libraries as learning centre. This was shown by the massive turn out to patronize the library services and resources weekly

The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

Activity of modern scholarship creates online footprints galore. Along with traditional metrics of research quality, such as citation counts, online images of researchers and institutions increasingly matter in evaluating academic impact, decisions about grant allocation, and promotion. We examined 400 biographical Wikipedia articles on academics from four scientific fields to test if being featured in the world's largest online encyclopedia is correlated with higher academic notability (assessed through citation counts). We found no statistically significant correlation between Wikipedia articles metrics (length, number of edits, number of incoming links from other articles, etc.) and academic notability of the mentioned researchers. We also did not find any evidence that the scientists with better WP representation are necessarily more prominent in their fields. In addition, we inspected the Wikipedia coverage of notable scientists sampled from Thomson Reuters list of "highly cited researchers". In each of the examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly. Both findings imply that Wikipedia might be producing an inaccurate image of academics on the front end of science. By shedding light on how public perception of academic progress is formed, this study alerts that a subjective element might have been introduced into the hitherto structured system of academic evaluation.Comment: To appear in EPJ Data Science. To have the Additional Files and Datasets e-mail the corresponding autho

Applied Epistemology and Understanding in Information Studies

Introduction. Applied epistemology allows information studies to benefit from developments in philosophy. In information studies, epistemic concepts are rarely considered in detail. This paper offers a review of several epistemic concepts, focusing on understanding, as a call for further work in applied epistemology in information studies. Method. A hermeneutic literature review was conducted on epistemic concepts in information studies and philosophy. Relevant research was retrieved and reviewed iteratively as the research area was refined. Analysis. A conceptual analysis was conducted to determine the nature and relationships of the concepts surveyed, with an eye toward synthesizing conceptualizations of understanding and opening future research directions. Results. The epistemic aim of understanding is emerging as a key research frontier for information studies. Two modes of understanding (hermeneutic and epistemological) were brought into a common framework. Conclusions. Research on understanding in information studies will further naturalistic information research and provide coherence to several strands of philosophic thought