Bibliometrics & Citation Analysis as a Tool

Bibliometrics is an important part of the LIS field and the Information Literacy toolbox (Larivière, 2012).

Bibliometric data is compiled using a citation index and the two leading ones are Thompson Reuters’ Web of Science or Elsevier’s Scopus (see e.g., WoS found at http://thomsonreuters.com /products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/) .  These two services look at citations of scholarly scientific articles and determine their “impact” by the number of times each is cited, where it is cited, and so forth.  Scholarly journals are also tracked this way (DeBellis, 2009; Larivière, 2012). 

While bibliometrics is a general term, there are other related metrics such as scientometrics.  “Scientometrics is the measurement of science communication, and bibliometrics deals with more general information processes” (Patra, Bhattacharya, & Verma, 2006). 

While it all sounds confusing, bibliometrics and scientometrics are widely used in the LIS field today.

Citation analysis helps researchers understand what are the best journals and resources from which to get their information.  I thinks its important today with the proliferation of open source journals and electronic publishing. 

As an analogy, I wouldn't know anything about buying a good car.  They all look the same.  Four tires, an engine, doors, etc.  However, there is a whole industry dedicated to telling us which are the best and safest cars. 

The same with citation analysis.  Which journals are the best?  Which academic discoveries (big or small) are firmly rooted in good science?   This is all done through citation analysis. 

It's also a good tool for self-evaluation.  Many times a journal will make an editorial decision based on an article's "impact factor".  This keeps out research that is done just to get published which is often the case when dealing with institutions that survive on grant money. 

Now, as the literature suggests (Larivière, 2012), citation analysis and bibliometrics is not as accurate in the social sciences and humanities field because the nature of scholarship is different.  SSH disseminates its knowledge differently than the natural sciences but it can still be a useful tool (Patra, Bhattacharya, & Verma, 2006). 

In the end, we should not think of citation analysis as "cheating" but an important part of Information Literacy.  How do we know the different between what is returned from an academic library search and a Google Scholar search, which doesn't do as well with citation analysis?  Tools like bibliometrics, scientometrics and citation analysis.

References 

De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis : From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Scarecrow Press. 

Larivière, V. (2012). The Decade of Metrics? Examining the Evolution of Metrics Within and Outside LIS. Bulletin Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 38(6), 12-17.

Patra, S., Bhattacharya, P., & Verma, N. (2006). Bibliometric Study of Literature on Bibliometrics. DESIDOC Bulletin Of Information Technology, 26(1), 27-32. 

 

Search behavior is an important field in library science.  LIS professionals are responsible for the classification, storage, and retrieval of information.  As each of these areas become more complex, search behavior and strategies are evolving into more sophisticated exercises with definable patterns (Ercegovac, 2008). 

A person’s search behavior or choice of strategy is based on four factors:  task, time, interest, and availability (Singer, 2012, p.1).  During a search, one factor can become dominant, affecting both the quality of the search and the behavior of the searcher. 

Rubin (2010) describes one model of search behavior in which individuals are classified into five different groups:  Horizontal Information Seeking, Navigators, Viewers, Squirreling Behavior, and Checkers.  Other researchers classify the way people search as strategies (Singer, 2012) and classify them as either steps or preferred methods.  

Academics focus on two competing models of search behavior or strategy (Baro, 2010).  According to Ellis (1989) a searcher uses six actions: starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring, and extracting.  Kulthau’s (1994) Information search Process (ISP) utilizes six stages of searching:  initiation, selection, exploration, formulation, collection, and presentation.  

By understanding the way patrons search for information, we as librarians can tailor our services to meet their needs.  Of all the services we offer (eg., reference, job-search help, reading suggestions) I submit that the task of Information Literacy is the most important. 

Why?  With the proliferation of information now available on the web, most patron searches begin on the web (Zickuhr, 2012).  In addition, the mission statements of today’s libraries are now focusing on patron “self-reliance” (USF, 2007; Rubin, 2010).  Thus, if more people are becoming more self-reliant (as opposed to asking a librarian for the information directly) then I submit that our primary goal should be learning how our patrons search and our primary service should be helping them understand what is the best information to use. 

References 

Baro, E. E., Onyenania, G. O., & Osaheni, O. (2010). Information seeking behaviour of undergraduate students in the humanities in three universities in Nigeria. South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 76, 109-117. 

Ellis, D. 1989. A behavioral model for information retrieval system design, journal of Information Science, 15: 237-247. 

Ercegovac, Z. (2008). Information Literacy : Search Strategies, Tools & Resources for High School Students and College Freshmen. Linworth Pub. 

Kuhlhau, CC. 1994. Seeking meaning: a proeess approaeh to library and information serviees. Nowood, N.J.: Abex.

Lesk, M. (2005). Understanding Digital Libraries. Elsevier. 

Rubin, R. E. (2010). Foundations of Library and Information Science (3^rd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman. 

Singer, K., Singer, G., Lepik, K., Norbisrath, U., & Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P. (2012). Search Strategies of Library Search Experts, http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.2465, accessed on October 28, 2012. 

University of South Florida. (2007). USF Libraries Strategic Plan: 2007-2012. Tampa, Florida. 

Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). Libraries, patrons, and e-books. Pew Internet & American Life Project, June 22, 2012 http://libraries.pewinternet.org/ 2012/06/22/libraries-patrons-and-e-books/, accessed on September 9, 2012.

New Series of Posts

Beginning today I will be publishing a series of posts based on the discussions we have as MLIS students.  I will try and cover those opportunities and challenges affecting the profession such as Web 2.0 functionality, the internet, Google, DRM, and others as they arise.

Even though they are conversations, I will endeavour to add the appropriate citations and references whenever possible.