Scholarly communication and bibliometrics

By Christine L. Borgman, Jonathan Furner. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2005

1,007 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Frontispiece - Derek J de Solla Price Introduction - Christine L Borgman PART ONE: THEORY AND PERSPECTIVE Understanding Science - Belver C Griffith Studies of Communication and Information Disciplinary Work and Interdisciplinary Areas - Sydney J Pierce Sociology and Bibliometrics Reconciling Structure and Process in the Study of Scholarly Communication - Leah A Lievrouw PART TWO: BIBLIOMETRIC RESEARCH METHODS A View of Studies on Bibliometrics and Related Subjects in Japan - S Miyamoto, N Midorikawa and K Nakayama Author Co-citation Studies - Howard D White Overview and Defense Who Carries the Field? Communication Between Literary Schools and Critics - Karl Erik Rosengren The Absence of Co-citation as a Clue to Undiscovered Causal Connections - Don R Swanson Hierarchies and Clusters Among Communication and Library and Information Science Journals, 1977 - 1987 - Ronald E Rice PART THREE: EMPIRICAL STUDIES An Author Co-citation Analysis of Two Research Traditions - Everett M Rogers and Charlotte A Cottrill Technology Transfer and the Diffusion of Innovations A Co-citation Study of AIDS Research - Henry Small and Edwin Greenlee Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space - Katherine W McCain Population Genetics in the 1980s International Scientific Cooperation and Awareness - H F Moed and R E DeBruin A Bibliometric Case Study of Agricultural Research Within the European Community Core Journals of the Rapidly Changing Research Front of "Superconductivity" - Terrance A Brooks Editors-in-Chief of Medical Journals - S Zsindely and A Schubert Identifying the Important Theorists of Communication - James R Beniger Use of Latent Measures to Test Manifest Assumptions in Scholarly Communication Conclusions - William Paisley The Future of Bibliometrics

Subfields: Information Systems, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b7c2f779951041ca918ae580177b6ee1fd0a476c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008, background): “Borgman and Furner (2002) consider further comparison of citing behavior within different disciplines necessary if we are to determine how far the results of Baldi (1998) may be generalized.”
Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2017, background): “A review of scholarly communication and bibliometrics by Borgman and Furner (2002) is also a key member of this cluster.”
Publishing patterns within the UK accounting and finance academic community (2004, background): “‘Disciplinary self-awareness’ of this form is viewed as a sign of a discipline’s maturity (Borgman, 1990).”
Stylometric Analysis of Scientific Articles (2012, background): “Bibliometrics is the empirical analysis of scholarly literature; citation analysis is a well-known bibliometric approach for ranking authors and papers (Borgman and Furner, 2001).”
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science (2006, neutral): “Much has been written about citation analysis techniques [18-29], application to different disciplines [1,28,30], and controversies surrounding the use of citation analysis and journal impact factors to gauge the value and impact of a given journal title or the corpus of a given author [1-3].”
Moving the financial accounting research front forward: the UK contribution (2005, background): “The scholarly communication literature identifies the academic journal as the primary medium of scholarly discourse (Borgman, 1990).”
Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks (2011, background): “ccessible indicator of scientific collaboration (Abbasi, Altmann & Hwang, 2010) and ―has thus been frequently used to measure collaborative activity‖ (Milojevic 2010), especially in bibliometric (Borgman and Furner 2002) and network-analysis studies (Milojevic 2010). Bibliometric studies of co-a”