In this conceptual paper I suggest that hermeneutic phenomenological view on humans in the world can lay a premise to understand our embodied, dialogical way of living in the world with information of all kinds. This gives us ethical stance to the development of information‐intensive world and points out our limits as human beings. First, I explicate the implicit and explicit traces of phenomenology in the field of Library and Information Studies (LIS). After that, I continue to explicate how human beings and their relation to the world of information can be conceptualized also by the means of understanding, and dialogicality, with hermeneutic phenomenology of Martin Heidegger, 1985 and Hans‐Georg Gadamer, 2004 T. Then, I introduce the concepts and conceptions of understanding human beings as living bodies in the world, based on hermeneutic phenomenology of Maurice Merleau‐Ponty, 2006. Together, these form a strong basis for understanding humans with information in their environment. Finally, I explicate why it is essential and meaningful to understand humans as embodied and dialogical, to be able to understand and examine information use, action, and interaction in our field in different contexts critically and sustainably.
{"title":"Embodied and dialogical basis for understanding humans with information: A sustainable view","authors":"Anna Suorsa","doi":"10.1002/asi.24952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24952","url":null,"abstract":"In this conceptual paper I suggest that hermeneutic phenomenological view on humans in the world can lay a premise to understand our embodied, dialogical way of living in the world with information of all kinds. This gives us ethical stance to the development of information‐intensive world and points out our limits as human beings. First, I explicate the implicit and explicit traces of phenomenology in the field of Library and Information Studies (LIS). After that, I continue to explicate how human beings and their relation to the world of information can be conceptualized also by the means of understanding, and dialogicality, with hermeneutic phenomenology of Martin Heidegger, 1985 and Hans‐Georg Gadamer, 2004 <jats:italic>T</jats:italic>. Then, I introduce the concepts and conceptions of understanding human beings as living bodies in the world, based on hermeneutic phenomenology of Maurice Merleau‐Ponty, 2006. Together, these form a strong basis for understanding humans with information in their environment. Finally, I explicate why it is essential and meaningful to understand humans as embodied and dialogical, to be able to understand and examine information use, action, and interaction in our field in different contexts critically and sustainably.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142254507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this contribution, we deal with seed‐based information retrieval in networks of research publications. Using systematic reviews as a baseline, and publication data from the NIH Open Citation Collection, we compare the performance of the three citation‐based approaches direct citation, co‐citation, and bibliographic coupling with respect to recall and precision measures. In addition, we include the PubMed‐related article score as well as combined approaches in the comparison. We also provide a fairly comprehensive review of earlier research in which citation relations have been used for information retrieval purposes. The results show an advantage for co‐citation over bibliographic coupling and direct citation. However, combining the three approaches outperforms the exclusive use of co‐citation in the study. The results further indicate, in line with previous research, that combining citation‐based approaches with textual approaches enhances the performance of seed‐based information retrieval. The results from the study may guide approaches combining citation‐based and textual approaches in their choice of citation similarity measures. We suggest that future research use more structured approaches to evaluate methods for seed‐based retrieval of publications, including comparative approaches as well as the elaboration of common data sets and baselines for evaluation.
在这篇论文中，我们讨论了研究出版物网络中基于种子的信息检索。我们以系统综述为基准，利用美国国立卫生研究院开放引文库（NIH Open Citation Collection）中的出版物数据，比较了直接引用、联合引用和书目耦合这三种基于引文的方法在召回率和精确度方面的表现。此外，我们还比较了 PubMed 相关文章得分以及综合方法。我们还对早期将引文关系用于信息检索目的的研究进行了相当全面的回顾。结果表明，联合引用比书目耦合和直接引用更有优势。不过，在研究中，将三种方法结合起来的效果要优于只使用联合引用的效果。研究结果进一步表明，与之前的研究结果一致，将基于引文的方法与文本方法相结合，可以提高基于种子信息检索的性能。研究结果可以指导将基于引文的方法与文本方法相结合的方法选择引文相似度测量方法。我们建议今后的研究采用更有条理的方法来评估基于种子的出版物检索方法，包括比较方法以及制定共同的数据集和评估基准。
{"title":"Seed‐based information retrieval in networks of research publications: Evaluation of direct citations, bibliographic coupling, co‐citations, and PubMed‐related article score","authors":"Peter Sjögårde, Per Ahlgren","doi":"10.1002/asi.24951","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24951","url":null,"abstract":"In this contribution, we deal with seed‐based information retrieval in networks of research publications. Using systematic reviews as a baseline, and publication data from the NIH Open Citation Collection, we compare the performance of the three citation‐based approaches direct citation, co‐citation, and bibliographic coupling with respect to recall and precision measures. In addition, we include the PubMed‐related article score as well as combined approaches in the comparison. We also provide a fairly comprehensive review of earlier research in which citation relations have been used for information retrieval purposes. The results show an advantage for co‐citation over bibliographic coupling and direct citation. However, combining the three approaches outperforms the exclusive use of co‐citation in the study. The results further indicate, in line with previous research, that combining citation‐based approaches with textual approaches enhances the performance of seed‐based information retrieval. The results from the study may guide approaches combining citation‐based and textual approaches in their choice of citation similarity measures. We suggest that future research use more structured approaches to evaluate methods for seed‐based retrieval of publications, including comparative approaches as well as the elaboration of common data sets and baselines for evaluation.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142218148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To provide a dynamic perspective on the evolution of Mendeley readership, this study conducts an 8‐year longitudinal analysis of approximately 3.4 million scholarly papers published in 2015. Mendeley readership data were collected annually from 2016 to 2023 for the sampled papers to analyze the temporal accumulation patterns of readership following publication. The results indicate that Mendeley readership exhibits a speed advantage compared to citations and a prevalence advantage compared to Twitter mentions, demonstrating both initial prevalence and sustained growth on a yearly basis. However, the patterns of accumulation vary across disciplines, with papers in Biomedical and Health Sciences showing the fastest accrual of extensive Mendeley readership data. Leveraging demographic data provided by Mendeley, this study further investigates how different user groups—categorized by academic status, disciplinary affiliation, and geographic location—engage with papers across various disciplines. The findings highlight Mendeley readership as a rapid and substantial altmetric, yet they also emphasize the need to interpret the nature of the attention captured by Mendeley readership with caution, considering its potential biases introduced by the varying engagement levels of different user groups across disciplines.
{"title":"How fast do scholarly papers get read by various user groups? A longitudinal and cross‐disciplinary analysis of the evolution of Mendeley readership","authors":"Zhichao Fang, Chonkit Ho, Zekun Han, Puqing Wu","doi":"10.1002/asi.24950","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24950","url":null,"abstract":"To provide a dynamic perspective on the evolution of Mendeley readership, this study conducts an 8‐year longitudinal analysis of approximately 3.4 million scholarly papers published in 2015. Mendeley readership data were collected annually from 2016 to 2023 for the sampled papers to analyze the temporal accumulation patterns of readership following publication. The results indicate that Mendeley readership exhibits a speed advantage compared to citations and a prevalence advantage compared to Twitter mentions, demonstrating both initial prevalence and sustained growth on a yearly basis. However, the patterns of accumulation vary across disciplines, with papers in Biomedical and Health Sciences showing the fastest accrual of extensive Mendeley readership data. Leveraging demographic data provided by Mendeley, this study further investigates how different user groups—categorized by academic status, disciplinary affiliation, and geographic location—engage with papers across various disciplines. The findings highlight Mendeley readership as a rapid and substantial altmetric, yet they also emphasize the need to interpret the nature of the attention captured by Mendeley readership with caution, considering its potential biases introduced by the varying engagement levels of different user groups across disciplines.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"300 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142218149","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article provides a scoping review of 25 years of research on the notion of cognitive authority (CA), examining its conceptualization and empirical examination. The review follows the PRISMA statement and its extension for scoping reviews. Peer‐reviewed journal articles on CA were identified through database searching with the specific search term “cognitive authorit*” in the title or abstract and covering work published in 2022 or earlier. In total, 235 unique references were identified, and their abstracts and then selected full texts were screened according to predetermined exclusion criteria. In total, 40 articles were included in the review, extracted, and analyzed with qualitative content analysis focusing on the conceptualization of CA, the methodological approach taken to examine it, and the different spheres of knowledge and levels of activity the research addressed. Based on this analysis, four parallel lines of research were identified including studies conceptualizing CA: (1) as an indicator of information source quality, (2) as discursively constructed, (3) as situated in social mechanisms and settings, and (4) as institutional legitimacy of science and professions. This body of research has extended Wilson's (1983; Second‐hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Greenwood Press) original work contributing to our understanding of CA at individual, communal, and societal levels.
本文对 25 年来有关认知权威（CA）概念的研究进行了概括性综述，考察了其概念化和实证研究。本综述遵循 PRISMA 声明及其范围界定综述的扩展。通过数据库检索，在标题或摘要中使用特定检索词 "认知权威*"，并涵盖 2022 年或更早发表的有关 CA 的同行评审期刊论文。总共确定了 235 篇独特的参考文献，并根据预先确定的排除标准筛选了这些文献的摘要和所选全文。总共有 40 篇文章被纳入综述，并进行了提取和定性内容分析，重点关注 CA 的概念化、研究 CA 所采用的方法以及研究涉及的不同知识领域和活动水平。在分析的基础上，确定了四条平行的研究路线，包括将 CA 概念化的研究：(1) 作为信息源质量的指标，(2) 作为话语建构，(3) 位于社会机制和环境中，(4) 作为科学和专业的机构合法性。这一系列研究扩展了威尔逊（1983；二手知识：An inquiry into cognitive authority.格林伍德出版社）的原创性工作，有助于我们理解个人、社区和社会层面的 CA。
{"title":"Cognitive authority: A scoping review of empirical research. An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper","authors":"Noora Hirvonen, Anna‐Maija Multas, Tuula Nygård, Maija‐Leena Huotari","doi":"10.1002/asi.24942","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24942","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides a scoping review of 25 years of research on the notion of cognitive authority (CA), examining its conceptualization and empirical examination. The review follows the PRISMA statement and its extension for scoping reviews. Peer‐reviewed journal articles on CA were identified through database searching with the specific search term “cognitive authorit*” in the title or abstract and covering work published in 2022 or earlier. In total, 235 unique references were identified, and their abstracts and then selected full texts were screened according to predetermined exclusion criteria. In total, 40 articles were included in the review, extracted, and analyzed with qualitative content analysis focusing on the conceptualization of CA, the methodological approach taken to examine it, and the different spheres of knowledge and levels of activity the research addressed. Based on this analysis, four parallel lines of research were identified including studies conceptualizing CA: (1) as an indicator of information source quality, (2) as discursively constructed, (3) as situated in social mechanisms and settings, and (4) as institutional legitimacy of science and professions. This body of research has extended Wilson's (1983; <jats:italic>Second‐hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority</jats:italic>. Greenwood Press) original work contributing to our understanding of CA at individual, communal, and societal levels.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142218150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joshua Introne, Brian McKernan, Charisse L' Pree Corsbie-Massay, Deana Rohlinger, Francesca Bolla Tripodi
As digitally enabled information systems play an increasingly central role in culture and economics, their negative consequences have become apparent. This guest editorial addresses the urgent need for information scientists to take a more deliberate stance in designing and guiding the evolution of these systems. We propose a framework for conceptualizing “healthier information ecosystems” by drawing on theories from complex systems and ecological research, grounded in a value-oriented approach. The article reviews key concepts from systems science, complex systems, and ecology, with a focus on ecosystem and adaptation research. These perspectives offer analytical approaches for decomposing information ecosystems and provide a foundation for understanding “health” in the context of evolving, open systems. Unlike natural ecosystems, information ecosystems must be evaluated according to human values; thus, we articulate a set of values as a starting point for defining health in this context. By introducing insights from beyond the field of information systems, we aim to instigate scholarly dialog, connect prior work in new ways, and reveal new opportunities for research and intervention. This connective and argumentative contribution is intended to guide future research and identify solutions to the proliferating problems in our current information ecosystems.
{"title":"Healthier information ecosystems: A definition and agenda","authors":"Joshua Introne, Brian McKernan, Charisse L' Pree Corsbie-Massay, Deana Rohlinger, Francesca Bolla Tripodi","doi":"10.1002/asi.24949","DOIUrl":"10.1002/asi.24949","url":null,"abstract":"<p>As digitally enabled information systems play an increasingly central role in culture and economics, their negative consequences have become apparent. This guest editorial addresses the urgent need for information scientists to take a more deliberate stance in designing and guiding the evolution of these systems. We propose a framework for conceptualizing “healthier information ecosystems” by drawing on theories from complex systems and ecological research, grounded in a value-oriented approach. The article reviews key concepts from systems science, complex systems, and ecology, with a focus on ecosystem and adaptation research. These perspectives offer analytical approaches for decomposing information ecosystems and provide a foundation for understanding “health” in the context of evolving, open systems. Unlike natural ecosystems, information ecosystems must be evaluated according to human values; thus, we articulate a set of values as a starting point for defining health in this context. By introducing insights from beyond the field of information systems, we aim to instigate scholarly dialog, connect prior work in new ways, and reveal new opportunities for research and intervention. This connective and argumentative contribution is intended to guide future research and identify solutions to the proliferating problems in our current information ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"75 10","pages":"1025-1040"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141926426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Krystyna K. Matusiak, Veslava Osinska, Peter Organisciak, Robyn Thomas Pitts
The increasing variety of research strategies and data collection techniques in information science, the access to large secondary data sets, and the ubiquity of information visualization call for expanding the classification of research methods and exploring how research is communicated visually. This study examined the relationship between types of data used in empirical research, visualizations, and research methods applied in information science studies. It analyzed 751 research articles published in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) using content analysis and machine learning techniques. The study finds that most empirical studies adopted a quantitative design with data mining, bibliometrics, experiments, and surveys as dominant strategies. The substantial use of secondary data points to the shift in how data are collected in empirical research. The JASIST articles used a variety of visualizations to present research designs and findings, with quantitative and mixed methods studies employing primarily tables and charts and qualitative studies relying more on tables and diagrams. This study uniquely explores the relationship between research methods and visualization. It contributes to the classification of the methods in information science by expanding the range of strategies within the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods designs.
{"title":"Research methods and the use of visual representation in library and information science research","authors":"Krystyna K. Matusiak, Veslava Osinska, Peter Organisciak, Robyn Thomas Pitts","doi":"10.1002/asi.24945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24945","url":null,"abstract":"The increasing variety of research strategies and data collection techniques in information science, the access to large secondary data sets, and the ubiquity of information visualization call for expanding the classification of research methods and exploring how research is communicated visually. This study examined the relationship between types of data used in empirical research, visualizations, and research methods applied in information science studies. It analyzed 751 research articles published in the <jats:italic>Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology</jats:italic> (<jats:italic>JASIST</jats:italic>) using content analysis and machine learning techniques. The study finds that most empirical studies adopted a quantitative design with data mining, bibliometrics, experiments, and surveys as dominant strategies. The substantial use of secondary data points to the shift in how data are collected in empirical research. The <jats:italic>JASIST</jats:italic> articles used a variety of visualizations to present research designs and findings, with quantitative and mixed methods studies employing primarily tables and charts and qualitative studies relying more on tables and diagrams. This study uniquely explores the relationship between research methods and visualization. It contributes to the classification of the methods in information science by expanding the range of strategies within the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods designs.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141946077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Besiki Stvilia, Yuanying Pang, Dong Joon Lee, Fatih Gunaydin
Data quality issues can significantly hinder research reproducibility, data sharing, and reuse. At the forefront of addressing data quality issues are research data repositories (RDRs). This study conducted a systematic analysis of data quality assurance (DQA) practices in RDRs, guided by activity theory and data quality literature, resulting in conceptualizing a data quality assurance model (DQAM) for RDRs. DQAM outlines a DQA process comprising evaluation, intervention, and communication activities and categorizes 17 quality dimensions into intrinsic and product‐level data quality. It also details specific improvement actions for data products and identifies the essential roles, skills, standards, and tools for DQA in RDRs. By comparing DQAM with existing DQA models, the study highlights its potential to improve these models by adding a specific DQA activity structure. The theoretical implication of the study is a systematic conceptualization of DQA work in RDRs that is grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the literature and offers a refined conceptualization of DQA integration into broader frameworks of RDR evaluation. In practice, DQAM can inform the design and development of DQA workflows and tools. As a future research direction, the study suggests applying and evaluating DQAM across various domains to validate and refine this model further.
{"title":"Data quality assurance practices in research data repositories—A systematic literature review","authors":"Besiki Stvilia, Yuanying Pang, Dong Joon Lee, Fatih Gunaydin","doi":"10.1002/asi.24948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24948","url":null,"abstract":"Data quality issues can significantly hinder research reproducibility, data sharing, and reuse. At the forefront of addressing data quality issues are research data repositories (RDRs). This study conducted a systematic analysis of data quality assurance (DQA) practices in RDRs, guided by activity theory and data quality literature, resulting in conceptualizing a data quality assurance model (DQAM) for RDRs. DQAM outlines a DQA process comprising evaluation, intervention, and communication activities and categorizes 17 quality dimensions into intrinsic and product‐level data quality. It also details specific improvement actions for data products and identifies the essential roles, skills, standards, and tools for DQA in RDRs. By comparing DQAM with existing DQA models, the study highlights its potential to improve these models by adding a specific DQA activity structure. The theoretical implication of the study is a systematic conceptualization of DQA work in RDRs that is grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the literature and offers a refined conceptualization of DQA integration into broader frameworks of RDR evaluation. In practice, DQAM can inform the design and development of DQA workflows and tools. As a future research direction, the study suggests applying and evaluating DQAM across various domains to validate and refine this model further.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141946078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alex J. Yang, Xiaohui Yan, Haotian Hu, Hanlin Hu, Jia Kong, Sanhong Deng
In exploring the intersection of scholarly research with technological advancement and societal impact, our analysis delves into nearly 40 million research papers spanning from 1950 to 2020 across all fields of study in science. Our scrutiny reveals an intriguing phenomenon: papers characterized by a higher CD index, often considered transformative, paradoxically exhibit a diminished propensity to influence technological and societal domains. This observation suggests a latent bias against the CD index, prompting a deeper inquiry into its implications. To unravel this trend, we introduce the concept of “disruptive citation,” a nuanced metric gauging the absolute disruptive impact of papers. Notably, papers drawing higher disruptive citations exhibit a significantly higher probability to influence both technological and societal spheres. Upon examining the heterogeneity across years and fields, we identify a bias against the CD index predominantly in the last two decades and within STEM fields. However, the positive effects of disruptive impact remain consistent across all years and fields. Our findings remain robust even when employing alternative measures of disruptive impact and controlling for total citations. By shedding light on these dynamics, our study seeks to enrich discussions regarding the recognition and role of disruptive scientific endeavors in shaping our world.
{"title":"Are disruptive papers more likely to impact technology and society?","authors":"Alex J. Yang, Xiaohui Yan, Haotian Hu, Hanlin Hu, Jia Kong, Sanhong Deng","doi":"10.1002/asi.24947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24947","url":null,"abstract":"In exploring the intersection of scholarly research with technological advancement and societal impact, our analysis delves into nearly 40 million research papers spanning from 1950 to 2020 across all fields of study in science. Our scrutiny reveals an intriguing phenomenon: papers characterized by a higher CD index, often considered transformative, paradoxically exhibit a diminished propensity to influence technological and societal domains. This observation suggests a latent bias against the CD index, prompting a deeper inquiry into its implications. To unravel this trend, we introduce the concept of “disruptive citation,” a nuanced metric gauging the absolute disruptive impact of papers. Notably, papers drawing higher disruptive citations exhibit a significantly higher probability to influence both technological and societal spheres. Upon examining the heterogeneity across years and fields, we identify a bias against the CD index predominantly in the last two decades and within STEM fields. However, the positive effects of disruptive impact remain consistent across all years and fields. Our findings remain robust even when employing alternative measures of disruptive impact and controlling for total citations. By shedding light on these dynamics, our study seeks to enrich discussions regarding the recognition and role of disruptive scientific endeavors in shaping our world.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141881257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research on how people look for and interact with information has a long history in the information field. The current literature has been repeatedly reviewed in earlier volumes of Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. In this review, we offer an overview of the research published in this area in the years 2016–2022 with a focus on the trends that have emerged in this period. We use the term “information behavior” as an umbrella for the research area interested in how people become informed and engage with information in diverse manners acknowledging that different researchers and subfields prefer other terms and frameworks, including information practices, information experience, and health information seeking, to name a few. We reviewed 1270 articles in the field published in the years 2016–2022 and identified seven emerging trends: The CoVID‐19 Pandemic, Diversity and Inclusion, Embodiment, Misinformation and Trust, Social Q&A Websites, Collaboration, and Information Creation. The reviewed literature and trends are discussed in relation to their significance for information, earlier review of information behavior research, and the long‐debated issue of theory‐driven versus atheoretical research in the field.
{"title":"Trends in information behavior research, 2016–2022: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology paper","authors":"Isto Huvila, Tim Gorichanaz","doi":"10.1002/asi.24943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24943","url":null,"abstract":"Research on how people look for and interact with information has a long history in the information field. The current literature has been repeatedly reviewed in earlier volumes of <jats:italic>Annual Review of Information Science and Technology</jats:italic>. In this review, we offer an overview of the research published in this area in the years 2016–2022 with a focus on the trends that have emerged in this period. We use the term “information behavior” as an umbrella for the research area interested in how people become informed and engage with information in diverse manners acknowledging that different researchers and subfields prefer other terms and frameworks, including information practices, information experience, and health information seeking, to name a few. We reviewed 1270 articles in the field published in the years 2016–2022 and identified seven emerging trends: The CoVID‐19 Pandemic, Diversity and Inclusion, Embodiment, Misinformation and Trust, Social Q&A Websites, Collaboration, and Information Creation. The reviewed literature and trends are discussed in relation to their significance for information, earlier review of information behavior research, and the long‐debated issue of theory‐driven versus atheoretical research in the field.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141886834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Irene V. Pasquetto, Zoë Cullen, Andrea Thomer, Morgan Wofford
Despite increasing expectations that researchers and funding agencies release their data for reuse, concerns about data misuse hinder the open sharing of data. The COVID‐19 crisis brought urgency to these concerns, yet we are currently missing a theoretical framework to understand, prevent, and respond to research data misuse. In the article, we emphasize the challenge of defining misuse broadly and identify various forms that misuse can take, including methodological mistakes, unauthorized reuse, and intentional misrepresentation. We pay particular attention to underscoring the complexity of defining misuse, considering different epistemological perspectives and the evolving nature of scientific methodologies. We propose a theoretical framework grounded in the critical analysis of interdisciplinary literature on the topic of misusing research data, identifying similarities and differences in how data misuse is defined across a variety of fields, and propose a working definition of what it means “to misuse” research data. Finally, we speculate about possible curatorial interventions that data intermediaries can adopt to prevent or respond to instances of misuse.
{"title":"What is research data “misuse”? And how can it be prevented or mitigated?","authors":"Irene V. Pasquetto, Zoë Cullen, Andrea Thomer, Morgan Wofford","doi":"10.1002/asi.24944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24944","url":null,"abstract":"Despite increasing expectations that researchers and funding agencies release their data for reuse, concerns about data misuse hinder the open sharing of data. The COVID‐19 crisis brought urgency to these concerns, yet we are currently missing a theoretical framework to understand, prevent, and respond to research data misuse. In the article, we emphasize the challenge of defining misuse broadly and identify various forms that misuse can take, including methodological mistakes, unauthorized reuse, and intentional misrepresentation. We pay particular attention to underscoring the complexity of defining misuse, considering different epistemological perspectives and the evolving nature of scientific methodologies. We propose a theoretical framework grounded in the critical analysis of interdisciplinary literature on the topic of misusing research data, identifying similarities and differences in how data misuse is defined across a variety of fields, and propose a working definition of what it means “to misuse” research data. Finally, we speculate about possible curatorial interventions that data intermediaries can adopt to prevent or respond to instances of misuse.","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141778726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：