This study uses the scientometric method to analyse the literature to summarise the development overview and research hotspots in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS), aiming at sorting out the knowledge structure of the discipline and providing references and information for deepening its research and development. This article takes 85 Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journals in the field of LIS as the research object, from which 116,570 articles from 1900 to 2023 are collected as the basis of data analysis. It employs the scientometric method based on visualisation software to analyse four dimensions of the LIS discipline: annual publications, journal outputs distribution, production and cooperation, and present focus and research hotspots, finding that the overall development of the discipline is stable and shows some new topics.
BörnerKChenCMBoyackKW.Visualizing knowledge domains. Annu Rev Inform Sci2003; 37: 179–255.
2.
Van RaanAFJ. Scientometrics: state-of-the-art. Scientometrics1997; 38: 205–218.
3.
KoehlerW.Information science as ‘Little Science’: the implications of a bibliometric analysis of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Scientometrics2001; 51: 117–132.
4.
SinS-CJ. International coauthorship and citation impact: a bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2011; 62: 1770–1783.
5.
WuCYuXG.The hot spots analysis of information services abroad. Inform Sciences2007; 25: 530–533.
6.
DingYChowdhuryGGFooS.Incorporating the results of co-word analyses to increase search variety for information retrieval. J Inf Sci2000; 26: 429–451.
7.
MilojevićSSugimotoCRYanEJ, et al. The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science: analysis of article title words. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2011; 62: 1933–1953.
8.
HuCPHuJMDengSL, et al. A co-word analysis of library and information science in China. Scientometrics2013; 97: 369–382.
9.
TaşkınZ.Forecasting the future of library and information science and its sub-fields. Scientometrics2020; 126: 1527–1551.
10.
HoodWWWilsonCS.The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics2001; 52: 291–314.
11.
ChappinEJLLigtvoetA. Transition and transformation: a bibliometric analysis of two scientific networks researching socio-technical change. Renew Sust Energ Rev2014; 30: 715–723.
12.
FahimniaBSarkisJChoudharyA, et al. Tactical supply chain planning under a carbon tax policy scheme: a case study. Int J Prod Econ2015; 164: 206–215.
13.
PritchardA.Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?J Doc1969; 25: 348–360.
14.
BroadusRN.Toward a definition of ‘bibliometrics’. Scientometrics1987; 12: 373–379.
15.
WhiteHDMcCainKW.Bibliometrics. Annu Rev Inform Sci1989; 24: 119–186.
16.
IngwersenPChristensenFH.Data set isolation for bibliometric online analyses of research publications: fundamental methodological issues. J Am Soc Inform Sci1997; 48: 205–217.
17.
YangSLHanRZ.Analysis of foreign methods and tools of mapping knowledge domain. Doc Inform Knowl2012; 30: 101–109.
18.
TanCHZhouYF.Analysis of researches on smart library in China over the last decade. Libr Tribune2022; 42: 69–79.
19.
DarrochJ.Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and practices. J Knowl Manag2003; 7: 41–54.
20.
OoiKB.TQM and knowledge management: literature review and proposed framework. Afr J Bus Manag2009; 3: 633–643.
21.
ZhongWJLiJ.The research of co-word analysis (1)—the process and methods of co-word anlysis. J Intell2008; 27: 70–72.
22.
HawkinsDT.Information science abstracts: tracking the literature of information science. Part 1: definition and map. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2001; 52: 44–53.
23.
Van DijkJAGM. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics2006; 34: 221–235.
24.
MaJLundB.The evolution and shift of research topics and methods in library and information science. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2021; 72: 1059–1074.
25.
HamidSBukhariSRavanaSD, et al. Role of social media in information-seeking behaviour of international students: a systematic literature review. Aslib J Inform Manag2016; 68: 643–666.
26.
KimT-YYangDChoiS, et al. Acquisition and preservation methods for social media archiving. J t Korean Soc Inform Manag2019; 36: 79–104.
27.
MeierF.Informationsverhalten in social media. Inform-Wissenschaft Praxis2015; 66: 22–28.
28.
ZhangMSheuF-RZhangY.Understanding Twitter use by major LIS professional organisations in the United States. J Inf Sci2018; 44: 165–183.
29.
KatsuraiM.Using word embeddings for library and information science research: a short survey. ACM SIGWEB Newsl2020; 26: 4.
30.
SohailANawazNAAShahAA, et al. A systematic literature review on machine learning and deep learning methods for semantic segmentation. IEEE Access2022; 10: 134557–134570.
31.
QiuJPHouJ.A bibliometrics study of papers in library and information science during 2002-2006. J Libr Sci China2008; 68: 47–52.
32.
WhiteHDGriffithBC.Author cocitation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. J Am Soc Inform Sci1981; 32: 163–172.
33.
Al-JamimiHABinMakhashenGMBornmannL.Use of bibliometrics for research evaluation in emerging markets economies: a review and discussion of bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics2022; 127: 5879–5930.
34.
HirschJE.An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. P Natl Acad Sci USA2005; 102: 16569–16572.
35.
BraunTGlanzelWSchubertA.A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics2006; 69: 169–173.
36.
MingersJLeydesdorffL.A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. Eur J Oper Res2015; 246: 1–19.
37.
HammarfeltB.Review of beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. J Doc2015; 71: 416–418.
38.
SuttonB.The rationale for qualitative research: a review of principles and theoretical foundations. Libr Quart1993; 63: 411–430.
39.
ChuH.Research methods in library and information science: a content analysis. Libr Inform Sci Res2015; 37: 36–41.
40.
LundBDWangT.An analysis of research methods utilized in five top, practitioner-oriented LIS journals from 1980 to 2019. J Doc2021; 77: 1196–1208.
41.
JamaliHR.Does research using qualitative methods (grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology) have more impact?Libr Inform Sci Res2018; 40: 201–207.
42.
AtkinsD.Creating and synthesizing evidence with decision makers in mind: integrating evidence from clinical trials and other study designs. Med Care2007; 45: S16–S22.
