Using Field Co-citation Analysis
to Assess Reciprocal and Shared Impact of LIS/MIS Fields
Cassidy R. Sugimoto (corresponding author)
School of Information and Library Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514; [email protected]
(919) 969-8716
Jean A. Pratt
Department of Business Information Systems
University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire
Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004; [email protected]
(715) 836-3155
Karina Hauser
Department of Management Information Systems
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-3515; [email protected]
(435) 797-8180
This study utilized bibliometric tools in order to analyze the relationship between two separate but
related fields—Library and Information Science (LIS) and Management Information Systems (MIS).
The top-ranked 48 journals in each field were used as the unit of analysis. Using these journals,
field co-citation was introduced as a method for evaluating the relationships between the two
fields. The three-phased study evaluated (a) the knowledge imported/exported between LIS and
MIS, (b) the body of knowledge influenced by both fields, and (c) the overlap in fields as
demonstrated by multidimensional scaling. Data collection and analysis were performed using
DIALOG and SPSS programs. The primary findings from this study indicate that (a) the MIS impact
on LIS is greater than the reverse, (b) there is a growing trend for shared impact between the two
disciplines, and (c) the area of overlap between the two fields is predominately those journals
focusing on technology systems and digital information. Additionally, this study validated field
co-citation as a method by which to evaluate relationships between fields.
Introduction
The storage, retrieval, and use of data to make informed decisions has emerged as a field of study
across diverse disciplines in this digital age. Content-specific information studies research and curricula
Field Co-citation Analysis 1
exist in bioinformatics, geographic information systems, museum informatics, and health information
systems, to name a few. Although the subject matter content changes across the disciplines, the goal
remains the same: improve the means by which data can be captured, stored, retrieved, and disseminated
to end users in the right format at the right time. Two closely related fields of information study are
management information systems (MIS) and library and information science (LIS). These two fields
focus on the processes and technologies associated with information flow, irrespective of subject matter
content.
One unique feature of both MIS and LIS is that, as relatively young fields based on advanced digital
technologies, they both drew heavily upon other disciplines and have now become a reference source for
other disciplines. MIS began to emerge as a field of study in the 1960s. The first MIS journal, MIS
Quarterly, was published in 1977; the first MIS conference, First International Conferences on
Information Systems, was held in 1980 (Chapman & Brothers, 2006). MIS is defined as a “field that
studies the use of information in business—what information is needed, how to get it, and how to use it”
(Chapman & Brothers, 2006). The integration of MIS across functional business disciplines is evidenced
by curricula, special interest groups, and conference tracks and sessions devoted specifically to the use of
information systems to achieve functional business goals (e.g., accounting information systems, human
resource information systems). The focus of MIS in business is real-time manipulation of current and
historical data for the purpose of making immediate decisions and forecasting business trends.
LIS shares a similar sort of history with MIS. While library science has been an established discipline
for quite some time, the inclusion of information science into “library and information science” has been
a relatively recent event. While some trace the emergence of information science as far back as 1895, use
of the term became established in the 1960s when the American Documentation Institute changed its
official name to the American Society for Information Science (University of South Florida, 2006). LIS is
defined as “an interdisciplinary science that investigates the properties and behavior of information, the
forces that govern the flow of information, and the techniques, both manual and mechanical, of
processing information for optimal storage, retrieval, and dissemination” (Borko, 1968, p. 3). The
Field Co-citation Analysis 2
interdisciplinarity of LIS has allowed it to serve as a reference for other social science disciplines and
more technologically-driven disciplines such as computer science. However, the focus of LIS is most
traditionally on historical documentation and the flow of information within libraries, archives, and other
public institutions.
The similarities between MIS and LIS definitions, methodologies and technologies suggest a shared
body of research. Yet, their different discipline-based purposes reflect parallel research streams. Although
research has been conducted to examine and define separately the fields of MIS (Bacon & Fitzgerald,
2001; Cheon, Chong, & Grover, 1992; Farhoomand, 1987; Gallivan, 2007; Grover et al., 2006; Hamilton,
1983; Khazanchi, 2000; Nasir, 2005) and LIS (Astrom, 2007; Persson, 1994; White & Griffith, 1981a;
White & McCain, 1998), little research exists that identifies the extent to which MIS and LIS influence
each other or a shared body of knowledge.
Two studies used different bibliometric analyses to examine perceived areas of shared research
between MIS and LIS. Ellis, Allen and Wilson (1999) used author co-citation to study usability studies
and information retrieval; Sawyer and Huang (2007) used document co-citation to study information and
communication technologies. Ellis, Allen and Wilson (1999) found very little overlap and a nearly equal
amount of citations flowing between the two disciplines. Sawyer and Huang (2007), nearly a decade later,
introduced their research by acknowledging a small overlap and examining differences in scholarship—
especially with regard to treatment of information, technology and people. Both studies were limited in
their scope: the author co-citation study was limited to only those authors who had over 100 citations; the
document co-citation study was limited to only two field-representative journals. A third study, Neeley
(1981), utilized cross-citation analysis to identify the relationship between management literature (broadly
expressed) and social science literature (broken down into four distinct research areas: economics,
psychology, sociology, and political science). The findings from this study confirmed earlier reports that
management literature is interdisciplinary in regards to social science literature. However, while LIS can
be considered part of the social science literature, this study did not specifically include any
journals/conference proceedings from the specific areas of LIS or MIS. Research identifying the overall
Field Co-citation Analysis 3
reciprocal and shared impact between MIS and LIS is necessary to define the shared body of research
between these two fields so that researchers and academicians can achieve synergy through shared
advances in theories, methodologies and tools.
One shared methodology is bibliometrics. Bibliometrics is a validated field of study for assessing the
movement and interactions within and between fields. Bibliometric studies can be classified as those
dealing with producers, artifacts, or concepts of communication (or a combination of these variables)
(Borgman, 1990). The most commonly used technique within bibliometrics is citation analysis, which has
been used to plot the course of development and history of particular fields and to aid in examination of
the transfer of written communication (Ibid). Small (1973) pioneered the work in document cocitation
studies—evaluating the network created when documents are linked through citations. White & Griffith
(White & Griffith, 1981; White, 1981) expanded this concept to research in author cocitation analysis—
using authors instead of documents as the focus of the analysis. At another level of granularity, McCain
(1991a, 1991b) introduced journal cocitation analysis—“techniques that treat an entire journal’s output in
the same fashion that author cocitation analysis considers an author’s oeuvre” (c.f. Morris, 2001). The
current study focuses on fields as producers of written communication, for which the aggregate level of
“field” is operationalized by using representative journals of each field as the units of analysis.
Citation analysis on the journal level has been used to evaluate the relationships of subfields within a
given field (Brooks, 1990; Doreian, 1985; Nerur, et al, 2005), the relationships of two fields to each other
(Rice, Borgman & Reeves, 1988; Borgman & Rice, 1992), the patterns of journal relationships
within/between two different international citation databases (Zhou & Leydesdorff), and the longitudinal
relationships of a number of related fields to one distinct line of research (McCain, 1998). A number of
different algorithms, measures, methods and metrics have also been applied to studying journal-journal
relationships (McCain, 1998; Pudovkin & Garfield, 2002; Leydesdorff, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Klavans &
Boyack, 2006), predominately relying on data from ISI’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR). These studies
focused primarily on the journal-to-journal relationship—evaluating the importation and exportation of
citations between all given pairs of journals. While these studies are useful in evaluating the
Field Co-citation Analysis 4
communication transfer between the sets of journals, they fail to show the dimension of a third party’s
perception of the journals’ relatedness. More work is necessary to expand the techniques of document cocitation analysis (Small, 1973), author co-citation analysis (White & Griffith, 1981a) and journal cocitation analysis (McCain 1991a, 1991b) to include journals as the principal unit of analysis in field cocitation analysis. Journals aggregated by field provide the closest representation of a field, which itself is
an invisible concept. Therefore, although previous studies utilized journal-to-journal analysis, this
research focused on field-to-field relationship using journals as the primary unit of analysis to represent
those fields. This analysis will show not only how the journals cite each other, but also how researchers
from multiple fields cite the publications from differing fields together, thereby indicating a network of
related research.
A gap still exists in the literature in reference to the overall shared body of research between the fields
of MIS and LIS. Specifically, research is necessary to identify the reciprocal impact of the fields (that is,
the importation and exportation of knowledge between the two fields); the shared impact of the two fields
on other fields; and the between-field and inter-field relationships of the MIS/LIS journals. This research
attempts to fill that gap by performing bibliometric analysis on journals from both MIS and LIS fields.
This research extended previous work by utilizing journals as the units of study for field co-citation
analysis; extending the scope to the top 48 journals in each field—larger than previous co-citation
analyses in these fields; and including all possible shared research areas between the fields. The value of
this research to educators and researchers may be to define a broader base of research on which to base
course curricula, identify empirically tested research theories that may be transferable to different content
applications, identify new publication outlets for overlapping research interests, and further define their
department or discipline based on a visual clustering of field-defining journals.
Phase I: Reciprocal Impact of MIS and LIS
Field Co-citation Analysis 5
The goal of the Phase I research was to identify the reciprocal impact of MIS and LIS—that is, the
ways in which MIS and LIS influence each other. This influence was assessed by evaluating the articles
within one field which cited the other field and vice versa. The number of citations from each field to the
other was garnered, as well as the proportion of the citations to the total number of articles. This showed
the relative number of imports/exports between the two fields.
Methods Phase I
Journal selection. An overlap in journal classification between LIS and MIS exists. Therefore,
methodological research triangulation was used to select the journals for this study. Methodological
triangulation involves using two or more methodological approaches focused on the same output. Each
methodology simultaneously validates the other(s) while compensating for their inherent weaknesses..
The results of both citation- and perception-based rankings from different sources were aggregated for a
more definitive journal classification. 1
Identifying the most highly ranked journals for LIS was achieved using the 2005 Journal Citation
Report provided by Thomson Scientific and the perception-based rankings by Nisonger and Davis (2005).
The rankings of the journals in both of these sources were combined, averaged, and re-ranked. The
journals for MIS were obtained from Rainer (2005), who reviewed nine citation- and perception-based
ranking studies to generate a composite ranking of the top 50 MIS journals. Thomson Scientific’s
Journal Citation Report was not used for MIS because there is not an independent category for MIS.
Four journals (MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Information and Management, and
Journal of Management Information Systems) appeared on both the MIS and LIS lists. Based on a
qualitative analysis of article subject areas, those journals were categorized as MIS. Likewise, the Journal
1
A similar method of finding consensus between citation- and perception-based rankings to identify core journals
was used in Neeley’s (1981) study of management and social science literature. For additional methods on selecting
core journals, we encourage readers to examine Servi and Griffith’s (1980) article on the Z factor and Hirst’s (1978)
article on discipline impact factors (among others).
Field Co-citation Analysis 6
of Information Science appeared on both lists and was categorized as LIS. One item, ACM Special
Interest Group Publications, was removed from the MIS list because it was a composite of several
journals. The remaining 48 journals from each list were used in this study to represent the MIS and LIS
literature (the list of journals of both fields appears in Appendix A).
Search methodology. DIALOG OneSearch was used to search the Social Science, Science, and Arts
& Humanities Database of Thompson Scientific (also known as ISI). To assess the reciprocal impact of
MIS and LIS, we ANDed all the 1977-2006 items published in the 48 LIS journals with all the documents
that cited the 48 MIS journals. That is, the article had to (a) appear in one of the 48 LIS journals and (b)
cite one of the 48 MIS journals. Similarly, we ANDed all the 1977-2006 items published in the 48 MIS
journals with all the documents that cited the 48 LIS journals. For all searches, we limited the documents
to articles and review articles only. An additional system-imposed limitation is that not all articles had a
fully indexed cited references field. Those that did not contain cited references were automatically
excluded (see Table 1 and Table 2 for a description of the number of articles searched within each field).
In all searches, we incorporated the previous names (if any) for all the journals (e.g., Journal of
Information Science OR Information Scientist)2.
Identifying all the items published in a journal is a straightforward task. In contrast, to generate a list
of all the documents that cited the 48 LIS or 48 MIS journals, it was necessary that we first identify all
possible abbreviated journal name strings in the cited reference field in the ISI database. For example, we
found and had to use the following possible combinations/permutations in our searches for documents
that cited the journal The Library Quarterly: LIB Q OR LIB Q JAN OR LIB Q JUL OR LIB QUART?
OR LIBR Q OR LIBRARY Q?
Results Phase I
2
The former names were identified using Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory.
Field Co-citation Analysis 7
After filtering for only those articles contained in and citing journals from the MIS/LIS lists of 48
journals, the reciprocal impact searches conducted with DIALOG resulted in a total of 81,296 MIS
journal articles and a total of 80,502 LIS journal articles. Those records were further culled to return
articles that met our different research criteria: articles and review articles published between 1977 and
February 2007 (when we collected the data) and containing cited references. Tables 1 and 2 identify the
number of records at each point in the data-collection refinement as well as the total number of records
from each field contributing to the reciprocal impact. We found 1875 (4.18%) MIS articles that cited any
of the 48 LIS journals and 5744 (18.43%) LIS articles that cited any of the 48 MIS journals (see Figure 1)
between 1977 and February 2007.
TABLE 1. MIS articles and review articles citing LIS journals
Description
Overall number of MIS articles
Overall number of articles (1977-May 2007)
Number of articles and review articles (1977-May 2007)
Number of articles and review articles with cited references (1977-May 2007)
Number of MIS articles and review articles citing LIS journals
Number
81,296
76,064
50,339
44,807
1,875
TABLE 2. LIS articles and review articles citing MIS journals
Description
Overall number of LIS articles
Overall number of articles (1977-May 2007)
Number of articles and review articles (1977-May 2007)
Number of articles and review articles with cited references (1977-May 2007)
Number of LIS articles and review articles citing MIS journals
Number
80,502
75,394
35,499
31,161
5,744
These findings indicate that LIS cites more literature from MIS than is the reverse; that is, the impact
of MIS literature on LIS literature may be greater than the impact of LIS literature on MIS literature. In
the context of the MIS/LIS relationship, this may imply that LIS is a weak exporter, which reinforces
similar studies of LIS in the context of other disciplines (Cronin & Pearson, 1990).
Field Co-citation Analysis 8
FIGURE 1. Independent impact of LIS and MIS research on each other
In both cases, the ten journals with the most citations made up over 60% of the total citation count,
indicating that the importation and exportation of knowledge between the two fields occurred between
relatively few journals. Tables 3 and 4 identify the ten journals containing articles which cited the most
journal articles from the other field.
TABLE 3. LIS Impact on MIS: MIS journals that cite LIS journals
MIS Journal
Information & Management
Communications of the ACM
Decision Support Systems
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
European Journal of Information Systems
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
MIS Quarterly
International Journal of Human Computer Studies
International Journal of Technology Management
Number of
Citations
192
169
160
150
118
113
91
86
75
69
Journal
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percentage
of Total Citations
10.24
9.01
8.53
8.00
6.29
6.02
4.85
4.58
4.00
3.68
Cumulative
Percentage
10.24
19.25
27.78
35.78
42.07
48.09
52.94
57.52
61.52
65.20
An interdisciplinary approach to managing technology is a common theme uniting the most-cited
MIS journals. As evidenced by their published scope and objectives, the journals listed in Table 3 focus
on both the theory and practice of technological developments in business. Subject areas span the use of
technology to support training and education to strategic global policy. In all cases, information storage
and retrieval is paramount.
TABLE 4. MIS Impact on LIS: LIS journals that cite MIS journals
LIS Journal
Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology
Number of
Citations
909
Journal
Rank
1
Percentage of
Total Citations
15.83
Cumulative
Percentage
15.83
Field Co-citation Analysis 9
Information Processing & Management
International Journal of Information Management
Journal of Information Science
Journal of Information Technology
Journal of the American Medical Informatics
Association
Internet Research
Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology
Journal of Documentation
International Journal of Geographical Information
804
412
319
301
257
2
3
4
5
6
13.99
7.17
5.55
5.24
4.47
29.82
36.99
42.54
47.78
52.25
241
234
7
8
4.20
4.07
56.45
60.52
192
188
9
10
3.34
3.27
63.86
67.13
As indicated in Table 4, the LIS journals which cite MIS the most are those with a technological bent
and those considered to be more “information science” rather than “library science”; those journals
tending more towards practicing librarians and “library science” (e.g., The Library Quarterly, Libraries &
Culture, and College & Research Libraries) are noticeably absent from this list.
Summary Phase I
The impact of MIS and LIS on each other was achieved by identifying articles in journals from either
MIS or LIS which cited the other field. The MIS impact on LIS was far greater, as demonstrated by the
large discrepancy between knowledge exported to and imported from LIS. Furthermore, the journalcitation search was effective in identifying those journals which contributed the majority of impact on
each field. Those journals which bridged the two disciplines focused more on the information technology
systems rather than on how people used those systems.
Phase II: Shared Impact of MIS and LIS
After identifying the reciprocal impact between MIS and LIS, the next step was to identify the shared
impact between MIS and LIS. That is, we needed to identify which journals, authors and subject areas
comprised the body of literature that simultaneously cited MIS and LIS and thereby provided evidence of
a joint impact of the two fields on a third body of literature. Our goal was to identify all the documents
Field Co-citation Analysis 10
that cited at least one of the 48 MIS journals and at least one of the 48 LIS journals identified in the
original list of field-defining journals. To achieve this goal, we administered a field co-citation analysis.
Methods Phase II
Field co-citation analysis is similar to author co-citation analysis (ACA) and can be used to identify
shared impact between fields. ACA focuses on the amount of times that two different authors are cited
together. The relative frequency of this co-citation provides evidence of a relationship between the two
authors (White & McCain, 1989). In a similar vein, this study defined two fields (MIS/LIS) by their
representative journals and examined the amount of times those two fields were cited together, that is,
when a representative journal from each field was cited by an individual article. While ACA focuses on
“cited authors’ bodies of work (oeuvres)” (McCain, 1990; Wania, Atwood & McCain, 2006; White, 1986;
White 1990; White & McCain, 1989), our study focused on the fields’ bodies of work (see Figure 2).
Following this model, whereas in ACA sets of documents comprise the cited authors’ bodies of work and
are the unit of analysis (White, 1990), in the case of field co-citation analysis, the sets of fieldrepresentative journals become the unit of analysis. Field co-citation is a logical extension of author cocitation. Field co-citation is achieved when a single document cites an article from at least one journal
from each field, showing its shared influence by both fields.
FIGURE 2. Comparison of author and field co-citation
Field Co-citation Analysis 11
We used the search strings generated in Phase I of this research to perform another ANDed search.
Whereas the Phase I search produced a list those articles published in one of the 48 journals that cited an
article published in a journal from the other list of 48 journals, the Phase II search expanded the search to
articles published in any journal that cited both MIS and LIS journals. That is, the search was not limited
to citations between the two fields, but rather incorporated any document in the ISI database which cited
the two fields simultaneously, regardless of the field to which that document belonged. The Phase II
search was recreated four different times: once limiting the documents to January 1977 through December
2006 and once for each of the decades within that time period (1977-1986, 1987-1996, and 1997-2006).
Results Phase II
The Phase II field co-citation analysis produced a co-citing corpus of authors, journals, and
institutions commonly influenced by both LIS and MIS literature. The co-citation search queries
identified 14,137 unique documents that cited at least one of the 48 MIS journals and one of the 48 LIS
journals. More than 70% of these co-citing documents occurred in the last ten years (see Table 5).
TABLE 5. Trend in co-citation of MIS/LIS journals
Years
Number of documents
Percentage of Total
1977-1986
1987-1996
1997-2006
Total
1114
3054
9969
14,137
7.88
21.60
70.52
100
Further examination of the results showed that over 25% of the co-citing articles were contained in
only ten journals/conference proceedings (Table 6). Of these, only one journal (Information and
Management) was from the MIS list of 48, seven of the journals were from the LIS list, and two
compilations (primarily of conference proceedings) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science and its subseries,
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence) were not on either list. These latter two titles ranked among the
top five journals/conference proceedings with co-citations and represented more than 8% of the total coField Co-citation Analysis 12
citations. The prominence of Lecture Notes on this list may indicate that computer science and artificial
intelligence were the field and sub-field that received the highest amount of shared impact from MIS/LIS
literature. We acknowledge that these are very broad and duplicative compilations which consist
primarily of research from proceedings and post-proceedings. This content must be taken into
consideration, therefore, when examining their dominance on these lists.
TABLE 6. Rank-ordered list of journals/conference proceedings containing MIS/LIS field co-citations
Journal/Conference Proceedings
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology
Information Processing & Management
Journal of Information Science
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology
International Journal of Information
Management
Information & Management
Journal of the American Medical Informatics
Association
Journal of Documentation
Citations
Journal Rank
(by number of citations)
1
2
MIS/LIS
940
740
Percentage
of Total
6.65
5.23
583
237
237
223
4.12
1.68
1.68
1.58
3
4.5
4.5
6
LIS
LIS
n/a
LIS
204
1.44
7
LIS
187
170
1.32
1.20
8
9
MIS
LIS
165
1.17
10
LIS
n/a
LIS
An analysis of the subject areas (as categorized by ISI) of the co-citing journals (Table 7) reinforced
what was found in the list of co-citing journals. Computer Science appeared as a subject category four
times in the top ten subject areas, with sub-fields of information systems, theory and methods, artificial
intelligence, and interdisciplinary application following close behind.
TABLE 7. Rank-ordered list of author-selected subject areas from MIS/LIS field co-citation journals
Subject
Information Science & Library Science
Computer Science, Information Systems
Management
Computer Science, Theory & Methods
Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence
Computer Applications & Cybernetics
Business
Engineering, Electrical & Electronic
Ergonomics
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Application
Citations
4980
1363
1263
1197
1110
625
531
488
419
383
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Field Co-citation Analysis 13
An analysis of the most-cited authors (Table 8) and their major research areas (as identified by their
websites) revealed a uniting theme of digital information storage and retrieval (especially with regard to
digital libraries), citation and statistical analysis, and informatics.
TABLE 8. Rank-ordered list of authors from MIS/LIS field co-citations
Author
Institution
Dept/School
Major Research Areas
Chen, Hsinchun
U of Arizona
MIS
Willett, Peter
U of Sheffield
Info Studies
Thelwall, Mike
U of
Wolverhampton
Rutgers
Computing &
Info Technology
Communication,
Info and Library
Studies
Info Systems
Rice, Ronald E.
Rada, Roy
Zobel, Justin
Salton, Gerard
Croft, W. Bruce
U of Maryland
at Baltimore
County
Royal
Melbourne
Institute of
Technology
Cornell
Citations
Rank
AI; E-Commerce; Digital Libraries;
Security
Chemoinformatics; Citation-based
Analysis
Statistical Cybermetrics; Information
and Language Processing
Digital Communication Media
90
1
71
2
43
3
40
4
Evolutionary Computation Applied to
Financial Investing; Healthcare
Information Systems
Bioinformatics; Search engines;
Algorithms and Data Structures;
Compression; Research Methods
39
5.5
39
5.5
Computer
Science
Computer
Science
Natural-Language Text Processing;
Text Analysis and Retrieval
Intelligent Information Retrieval
36
7
33
8.5
Info Studies
Information Seeking and Retrieval;
Query Formulation: IR Interfaces;
Cross-Language IR; Document
Databases
Spatio-Temporal Reasoning; User
Interfaces for Geographic
Information Systems; The Design of
Spatial Database Systems; and
Mobile Spatial Information
Appliances
Digital Libraries
33
8.5
32
10.5
32
10.5
Citation Analysis; Informetrics;
Scholarly Communication; Strategic
Intelligence
Text and Index Compression; Text
Indexing Methods, Index
Construction; Information Retrieval
Heuristics
Diffusion and adoption of information
technology; E-government;
Information Systems Management
and Planning; Internet and Ebusiness; Offshoring; Performance
impact of IT
Visual Analytics
31
12
30
13.5
30
13.5
26
15.5
Information Interaction; HumanComputer Interaction; HumanCentered Computing; Information
26
15.5
Computer
Science and
Info Technology
Jarvelin, Kalervo
U of
Massachusetts
Amherst
U of Tampere
Egenhofer, Max J
U of Maine
Spatial Info
Science and
Engineering
Fox, Edward A.
Virginia Tech
Cronin, Blaise
Indiana U
Computer
Science
Library and Info
Science
Moffat, Alistair
U of Melbourne
Teo, Thompson SH
National U of
Singapore
Chen, Chaomei
Drexel
Marchionini, Gary
U of North
Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Computer
Science and
Software
Engineering
Decision
Sciences
Info Science &
Technology
Info and Library
Science
Field Co-citation Analysis 14
Retrieval; Digital Libraries;
Information Architecture; Digital
Government; Information Policy
Summary Phase II
The results from Phase II illustrated a growing trend for shared impact between the two disciplines.
Computer science and artificial intelligence were identified as the field and sub-field receiving the largest
portion of shared impact from MIS and LIS publications. Information retrieval, statistical methods, and
interdisciplinary applications were additional fields that simultaneously cited MIS and LIS publications.
Phase III: Field Co-Citation
The next phase of our research was to validate field co-citation as an accurate technique for mapping
and evaluating fields. Data from the co-citation analysis was used to create a map of the between- and
within-field relationships of 15 LIS and 16 MIS publications. This map showed topical clustering within
each field and also the relationships between the two fields.
Methods Phase III
We mapped the journals spatially according to their co-citation patterns in order to visualize the
relationship between the journals in the two fields. We used the mapping techniques described by McCain
(1990), but substituted journals for authors as the unit of analysis. A group of 31 journals was selected for
this analysis (Table 9). This selection included the top ten journals in each field (as ranked in our
selection process) and the ten journals in each field which most cited the other field (as identified in
Tables 3 and 4). Once duplicate journals were removed, a list of 31 was identified—15 of these from our
list of LIS journals and 16 from our list of MIS journals. The motivation for selecting only the top
Field Co-citation Analysis 15
journals and the journals which were most cited between the two fields was to identify the greatest areas
of potential overlap between the fields.
TABLE 9. List of LIS and MIS journals used in the proximity mapping
Abbreviated Name
Full Name
ACM_TIS
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
ARIST
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
CACM
Communications of the ACM
CRL
College & Research Libraries
DS
Decision Sciences
DSS
Decision Support Systems
EJIS
European Journal of Information Systems
HBR
Harvard Business Review
IEEE_TSE
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
IEEE_TSMC
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
IJGIS
International Journal of Geographical Information Science
IJHCS
International Journal on Human Computer Studies
IJIM
International Journal of Information Management
IJTM
International Journal of Technology Management
IM
Information & Management
IPM
Information Processing & Management
IR
Internet Research
ISR
Information Systems Research
JAMIA
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
JASIST
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
JD
Journal of Documentation
JIS
Journal of Information Science
JIT
Journal of Information Technology
JMIS
Journal of Management Information Systems
JSIS
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
LC
Libraries & Culture
LISR
Library & Information Science Research
LQ
Library Quarterly
MISQ
MIS Quarterly
MS
Management Science
S
Scientometrics
The process for mapping the MIS and LIS fields followed McCain’s (1990) multivariate analysis
techniques (including factor analysis, cluster analysis, and multidimensional scaling) using a seven-step
procedure: (a) compile the raw journal co-citation data using DIALOG, (b) run a frequencies test in SPSS
Field Co-citation Analysis 16
to check the data, (c) create a dendrogram and icicle plot in SPSS using the furthest neighbor method and
Pearson correlations measure, (d) run a proximities matrix in SPSS using ALSCAL, (e) run a principal
components analysis on the original raw co-citation matrix using the FACTOR tool in SPSS, (f) redraw
the clustering map according to the coordinates given in SPSS, and (g) circle clusters within the map on
the basis of the dendrogram clustering. The resulting map, shown in Figure 3, provides a visualization of
the within-field and between-field relationships of MIS and LIS.
It is important to note that the Pearson correlation coefficient is used throughout this methodology as
an indicator of similarity. There has been considerable debate in the literature over the appropriateness of
this measure for cocitation matrices (Ahlgren, Jarneving, & Rousseau, 2003, 2004; White 2003, 2004;
Bensman, 2004; Leydesdorff & Vaughan, 2006). Ahlgren, Jarneving, and Rousseau (2003) have argued
that the Pearson correlation coefficient does not satisfy “natural requirements for such a proximity or
similarity measure” (p. 550) and argue instead for the use of chi-squared distance or cosine measures.
Leydesdorff and Vaughan have argued that Pearson correlation coefficients are only appropriate in
asymmetrical matrices. White (2003) responded to the Ahlgren, Jarneving, and Rousseau (2003) article
by mapping and clustering Ahlgren, Jarneving, and Rousseau’s (2003) data—noting that the use of the
other measures did not make significant changes in the overall structure of the map and commenting that
the primary aim of cocitation analysis was to “visualize broad patterns of a field…and not to interpret the
underlying pairwise coefficients” (p. 1251-52). The use of the Pearson’s r for this research follows this
same line of logic. Especially in the case of field co-citation analysis, we are more interested in the broad
areas of overlap between the two fields and less interested in the individual coefficients between the data.
For this purpose, Pearson’s r is adequate in supplying an intelligible visualization of the areas of overlap
between the two fields.3
3
We acknowledge that there is an ongoing theoretical debate involving the proper methodology based on the nature
of the data (whether symmetrical or asymmetrical; similar or dissimilar). For those interested in a more detailed
analysis of this debate, we encourage them to following references: Ahlgren, Jarneving, & Rousseau, 2003, 2004;
White 2003, 2004; Bensman, 2004; and Leydesdorff & Vaughan, 2006.
Field Co-citation Analysis 17
Results Phase III
A two dimensional proximity map was generated using the raw co-citation matrix (Figure 3). This
map displays the relationship between the 31 journals evaluated in Phase III. The journals identified by
red triangles are those belonging to the LIS group; the journals identified by yellow squares are MIS
publications. The horizontal (x) axis explains discipline: the LIS journals appear on the positive x axis;
the MIS journals appear on the negative x axis. However, there are three notable exceptions within the
LIS group and one exception within the MIS group. The Journal of Information Technology, the
International Journal of Information Management, and the International Journal of Geographical
Information Science are all LIS journals appearing on the MIS side of the axis; ACM Transactions on
Information Systems is an MIS journal appearing on the LIS side of the axis. The clustering of these
journals may indicate that their subject matter is more closely aligned with the journals of the other field
and that perhaps they should be reclassified as such.
Using the dendrogram created by means of cluster analysis (see Appendix B), clusters were identified
on the MDS map (see Figure 3). The cluster analysis revealed one dominant LIS cluster—including ten
of the 15 LIS journals. Two LIS journals, Journal of Information Technology and the International
Journal of Information Management, fell firmly within an MIS cluster. The remaining LIS journals—
Internet Research, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, and the International
Journal of Geographical Information Science fell into a group of boundary spanners—that is, a cluster
which spanned both sides of the x axis and included journals from both domains.
The cluster analysis showed MIS to be more fragmented than LIS. Whereas LIS journals were
uniformly grouped into one cluster, the MIS journals tended to align into subgroups. Additionally,
although more visually evident on the dendrogram than the MDS, three MIS journals stood out as
singletons: Management Science, MIS Quarterly, and Communications of the ACM. Four MIS journals
appeared in the boundary spanning group: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, IEEE
Field Co-citation Analysis 18
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, the International Journal on Human Computer Studies,
and ACM Transactions on Information Systems.
INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE
The vertical (y) axis illustrates a continuum in foci: journals focused more on people and management
issues appeared on the positive y axis; journals focused more on systems and technology appeared on the
negative y axis. In an evaluation of the core LIS journals, one can see a vertical continuum from the more
traditionally library-oriented publications—Libraries & Culture, College & Research Libraries, and The
Library Quarterly—on the positive end of the y axis, to journals more dedicated to systems, technology
and information science on the negative end of the y axis: Journal of Information Science, Journal of
Documentation, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Information Processing &
Management, and the Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. Library
and Information Science Research and Scientometrics fell between those two core groups, but appeared
more closely aligned with the library-oriented publications. As noted above, three more technologicallydriven and informatics LIS journals appeared as boundary-spanning journals between LIS and MIS:
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Internet Research, and The International
Journal of Geographical Information Science.
Placement of the MIS publications along the y axis was similar to that of the LIS publications. Those
journals focused more on how technology can be used by managers and decision makers—Management
Science, Information Management, MIS Quarterly, Information Journal of Technology Management—
clustered higher on the y axis, while those journals focused more on cutting-edge technology—
Communications of the ACM, IEEE publications, and Decision Support Systems appeared on the negative
y axis.
Summary Phase III
Field Co-citation Analysis 19
The results of the proximity mapping validated field co-citation as an appropriate technique for
evaluating and mapping bodies of knowledge. As anticipated, the journals clustered together with other
journals within their field and the boundary spanning journals provided evidence of overlapping research
areas. Results of this study demonstrated that field co-citation proximity mapping can be used to (a) map
areas of overlap between different fields, (b) classify and align journals within given fields, and (c) map
subfields within fields.
Results from the proximity mapping to visualize the relationships both within and between MIS and
LIS journals revealed a core cluster of LIS journals. The MIS journals, by contrast, were split between
two main groups and three singletons, resulting in looser clusters on the MIS side. This finding may
indicate that LIS is a more narrowly defined field in comparison to a somewhat broader and/or
fragmented MIS field. A brief perusal of journal scope from the overlapping journals supports the
findings in Phase II: overlapping publications between the two fields seem to be those which focus more
on the technology systems and digital information. The journals higher on the vertical axis emphasized
more of the human component in information studies.
Conclusions and Future Directions
This three-phase research was valuable in identifying the reciprocal and shared impact between
Library and Information Science (LIS) and Management Information Systems (MIS), validating field cocitation as an accurate bibliometric analysis tool, and defining the evolving fields of LIS and MIS.
LIS and MIS are similar in their multidisciplinary composition. Whereas they drew heavily from
other fields in their origin (e.g., MIS from computer science and management and LIS from education and
communication), they are both diverse and defined enough now to serve as reference points to each other
and to other research fields. Therefore, one goal of this research was to evaluate the evolving
multidisciplinary composition of LIS and MIS in order to identify for researchers and academicians areas
Field Co-citation Analysis 20
where synergistic exploitation of efforts could maximize the study and use of emerging information
technologies.
We found that MIS and LIS shared knowledge in terms of reciprocal citations. In raw citation
numbers, LIS imported more from MIS than it exported, indicating that the impact of MIS literature on
LIS literature was greater than the inverse. The majority of the citations between those two fields
occurred among a relatively small group of journals, with the importing MIS journals focusing on digital
information storage and retrieval and the importing LIS journals focusing on technology. This same
technical overlap trend was revealed again when we mapped the journals according to their field cocitations. Those journals proximal to and overlapping the LIS/MIS boundary were focused more on the
technology systems, the core cluster of journals within each field balanced technology and the human
element, and the peripheral journals focused more on people. The proximity mapping also visually
illustrated a possible reason for the discrepant reciprocal impact: LIS is defined by a narrow cluster of
journals; MIS is defined by multiple sub-clusters of journals. Therefore, LIS researchers have more
possible MIS subject areas from which to draw referential support.
MIS and LIS also shared knowledge in terms of a shared impact on a third body of works. There were
14,137 unique documents that comprised the body of works that cited at least one MIS journal and one
LIS journal. More than 70% of these were published in the last decade, showing an increase in the shared
impact of these two disciplines. The body of shared impact was comprised of LIS and MIS journals as
well as journals/authors from other fields and sub-fields including computer science and artificial
intelligence. This finding illustrates the multidisciplinary impact of MIS/LIS and the increased
opportunity for integrated, collaborative research and teaching among the complementary fields. Of
additional value to researchers interested in pursuing this type of synergistic research is the identification
of subject areas and primary researchers whose work is advancing LIS, MIS and other fields.
Identifying reciprocal and shared impact between LIS and MIS and the areas of overlapping research
between LIS/MIS and other fields was a significant practical contribution of this paper. The greatest
theoretical contribution was the introduction of field co-citation as an accurate way to define and visualize
Field Co-citation Analysis 21
a field. Field co-citation provides a more extensive means of defining a field than is possible with author
or document co-citation. For example, ISI listed 53 journals in LIS. We were able to use 48 of those
journals—a nearly comprehensive coverage of a field which would be nearly impossible to replicate using
authors or documents. Author and document co-citation necessarily introduce bias because of the limited
sampling logistically afforded. Additionally, field co-citation using journals as a visible proxy of a field is
a more stable way to define a field, since authors can change the scope of their research from publication
to publication, but journal content remains fairly stable. A histogram of journals over time will display
less volatility; therefore, journals are the closest proxy we have to conceptualize a field. A practical
benefit of the theoretical contribution of field co-citation is the ability of faculty to use field co-citation to
clearly delineate one field from another. Field co-citation analysis enables us to define our fields based on
the clustering of our journals around related topics.
Future work is necessary to further test and validate the field co-citation model. In addition to testing
new pairs of fields, the model needs to be tested with multiple fields. The addition of multiple fields may
allow the mapping to be expanded to multiple dimensions. For example, instead of the dominant
dimension being by discipline (LIS vs. MIS), the journals may cluster more by subfields or other
variables (computer vs. human interaction, practitioner vs. theoretical, etc.). Future work on analyzing
field co-citation mapping in multiple dimensions should include a strong element of content analysis in
order to illuminate the subfields and dimensions within the map. An additional direction of the work may
be to evaluate the success of field co-citation in classifying ambiguous journals into distinct fields based
on their placement on the proximity map. The introduction of an ambiguous journal should cluster with
related journals and provide the researcher with an indicator of the field in which that journal belongs.
The results of this research demonstrated that a field co-citation analysis of any two fields should result in
a clustering of journals within each field and identification of boundary-spanning journals.
References
Field Co-citation Analysis 22
Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure,
with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550-560.
Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2004a). Author cocitation and Pearson’s r. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(9), 843.
Astrom, F. (2007). Changes in the LIS research front: Time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal
articles, 1990-2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7),
947-57.
Bacon, C.J. & Fitzgerald, B. (2001). A systemic framework for the field of information systems. DATA
BASE, 32(2), 46-67.
Bensman, S.J. (2004). Pearson’s r and Author Cocitation Analysis: A commentary on the controversy.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(10), 936.
Borgman, C.L. (1990). Introduction In C.L. Borgman (Ed.) Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics
(pp. 10-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Borgman, C.L., & Rice, R.E. (1992). The convergence of information science and communication: a
bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(6), 397-411.
Borko, H. (1968). Information science: What is it? American Documentation, 19(1), 3-5.
Brooks, T. A. (1990). Core journals of the rapidly changing research front of “superconductivity.” In C.L.
Borgman, (Ed.) Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics (pp. 235-247). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Chapman, K. & Brothers, P. (2006). Database coverage for research in management information systems.
College & Research Libraries, 67(1), 50-62.
Cheon, M.J., Choong, C.L, & Grover, V. (1992). Research in MIS—Points of work and reference: A
replication and extension of the Culnan and Swanson study. Data Base, 23(2), 21-29.
Cronin, B. & Pearson, S. (1990). The export of ideas from information science. Journal of Information
Science, 16(6), 381-391.
Field Co-citation Analysis 23
Doreian, P. (1985). Structural equivalence in a psychology journal network. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 36(6), 411-417.
Ellis, A., Allen D. & Wilson T. (1999). Information science and information systems: Conjunct subjects
disjunct disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1095-1107.
Farhoomand, A.F. (1987). Scientific progress of management information systems. Data Base, 18(4), 4856.
Gallivan, M. & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). Analyzing IS research productivity: An inclusive approach to
global IS scholarship. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 26-53.
Grover, V., Ayyagari, R., Gokhale, R., Lim, J. & Coffey, J. (2006). A citation analysis of the evolution
and state of information systems within a constellation of reference disciplines. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 7(5), 270-325.
Hamilton, S. & Ives, B. (1983). The journal communication system for MIS research. Data Base, 14(2),
3-14.
Hirst, G. (1978). Discipline impact factors: A method for determining core journal lists. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 43(6), 397-411.
Khazanchi, D. & Munkvold, B.E. (2000). Is information systems a science? An inquiry into the nature of
the information systems discipline. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 31(3), 2442.
Klavans, R., & Boyack, K.W. (2006). Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 251-263.
Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal
citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 57(5), 601-613.
Leydesdorff, L. (2007a). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific
journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303-1319.
Field Co-citation Analysis 24
Leydesdorff, L. (2007b). Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals: an
online mapping exercise. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
58(1), 25-38.
Leydesdorff, L. & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information
science: Extending ACA to the Web environment. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 57(12), 1616-1628.
McCain, K.W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433-443
McCain, K.W. (1991a). Mapping economics through the journal literature: An experiment in journal
cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4), 200-296.
McCain, K.W. (1991b). Core journal networks and cocitation maps: New bibliometrics tools for serials
research and management. Library Quarterly, 61(3), 311-336.
McCain, K.W. (1998). Neural networks research in context: a longitundinal journal cocitation analysis of
an emerging interdisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 41(3), 389-410.
Morris, T.A. (2001). Structural relationships within medical informatics: A classification/indexing cooccurrence analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University.
Nasir, S. (2005). The development, change, and transformation of Management Information Systems
(MIS); A content analysis of articles published in business and marketing journals. International
Journal of Information Management, 25(5), 442-457.
Neeley, J.D. (1981). The management and social science literatures: An interdisciplinary cross-citation
analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 217-223.
Nerur, S., Sikora, R., Mangalaraj, G. & Balijepally, V. (2005). Assessing the relative influence of journals
in a citation network. Communications of the ACM, 48(11), 71-74.
Nisonger, T.E., & Davis, C.H. (2005). The perception of library and information science journals by LIS
education deans and ARL library directors: A replication of the Kohl-Davis study. College &
Research Libraries, 66(4), 341-377.
Field Co-citation Analysis 25
Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of 1986-1990. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31-38.
Pudovkin, A.I., & Garfield, E. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 53(13), 1113-1119.
Rainer, R.K., & Miller, M.D. (2005). Examining differences across journal rankings. Communications of
the ACM, 48(2), 91-94.
Rice, R.E., Borgman, C.L., & Reeves, B. (1988). Citation networks of communication journals, 19771985: Cliques and positions, citations made and citation received. Human Communication Research,
15, 256-283.
Sawyer, S. & Huang, H. (2007). Conceptualizing information, technology, and people: Comparing
information science and information systems literatures. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1436–1447.
Servi, P.N. & Griffith, B.C. (1980). A method for partitioning the journal literature. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 31(1), 36-40.
Small, H.G. (1973). Cocitation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two
documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
University of South Florida. (2006). What is information science and how is it related to library science?
Retrieved February 24, 2007 from http://www.cas.usf.edu/lis/lis6260/lectures/infosci.htm.
Wania, C. E., Atwood, M. E., & McCain, K.W. (2006). Mapping the field of Human-Computer
Interaction (HCI). Paper presented at the 69th Annual American Society for Information Science and
Technology Meeting, Austin, TX, p.43.
White, H.D. (1981) Cocited author retrieval online: An experiment with the social indicators literature.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32, 16-21.
White H.D. (1986) Co-cited author retrieval. Information Technology and Libraries 5(2), 93-99
White H.D. (1990) Author cocitation analysis: Overview and defense In C.L. Borgman (Ed.) Scholarly
Communication and Bibliometrics 84-106. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Field Co-citation Analysis 26
White, H.D. & Griffith, B.C. (1981). Author cocitation: a literature measure of intellectual structure.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32, 163-171.
White, H. D. & McCain, K. W. (1989) Bibliometrics, Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology 24, 119-186.
White, H.D. & McCain, K.W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of
information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327355.
White, H.D. (2003). Author cocitation analysis and Pearson’s r. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1250-1259.
White, H.D. (2004). Replies and a correction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 55(9), 843-844.
Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2007). A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers
and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal
citation relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2),
223-236.
Appendix A: 48 Journals in each Discipline Selected for this Study
MIS Journals
1. Academy of Management Journal
2. Academy of Management Review
3. ACM Computing Surveys
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
ACM Transactions on Database Systems
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
Administrative Science Quarterly
Communications of the ACM
Communications of the Association for Information
LIS Journals
1. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology
2. Aslib Proceedings
3. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Science / Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de l'Information et des
Bibliotheconomie
4. College & Research Libraries
5. D-Lib Magazine
6. Electronic Library, The
7. Government Information Quarterly
8. Information Processing & Management
Field Co-citation Analysis 27
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Systems
Computer
Computers and Operations Research
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems
Database Programming & Design
Decision Sciences
Decision Support Systems
European Journal of Information Systems
Harvard Business Review
IBM Systems Journal
IEEE Software
IEEE Transactions on Computers
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
Information & Management
Information and Organization
Information Resources Management Journal
Information Systems Journal: An International Journal
Information Systems Management
Information Systems Research
Interfaces
International Journal of Human Computer Studies
International Journal of Technology Management
Journal of Database Management
Journal of Informatics Education and Research
Journal of Information Management
Journal of Information Systems
Journal of Information Systems Education
Journal of Information Technology Management
Journal of international technology and information
management
Journal of Management Information Systems
Journal of Management Systems
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
Journal of Systems Management
Journal of the ACM
Management Science
MIS Quarterly
Omega: International Journal of Management Science
46. Organization Science
47. MIT Sloan Management Review
48. Strategic Management Journal
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Information Research
Information Retrieval
Information Society, The
Information Technology and Libraries
Interlending & Document Supply
International Information & Library Review
International Journal of Geographical Information Science
International Journal of Information Management
Internet Research
Journal of Academic Librarianship
Journal of Documentation
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Information Science
Journal of Information Technology
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
Journal of Scholarly Publishing
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Knowledge Organization
Law Library Journal
Libraries & Culture
Library & Information Science Research
Library and Information Science
Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services
Library Quarterly, The
Library Resources & Technical Services
Library Trends
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Libri
Online
Online Information Review
Portal: Libraries and the Academy
Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems
Reference & User Services Quarterly
Research Evaluation
Restaurator: International Journal for the Preservation of
Library and Archival Material
46. Scientometrics
47. Social Science Information / Information sur les Sciences
Sociales
48. Zeitschrift fur bibliothekswesen und bibliographie
Appendix B: Dendrogram using Complete Linkage
C A S E
Label
Num
JIT
JSIS
EJIS
IJIM
9
29
20
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+


 


Field Co-citation Analysis 28
Harvard
21


InfoSysRsr 25
 


JMIS
28



DSS
19


JAMIA
10



TOIS
16




IR
6




IJGIS
4



IJHCS
26

 


IEEE_SW
22




IEEE_SMC
23



CACM
17


InfoMgmnt 24



IJTM
27
 


DecSci
18




MIS
31



MgmntSci
30


JDoc
7


Scientomet 15
 

ARIST
1
  

JIS
8
  

IP&M
3




LISR
13



LibQuart
14





C&RL
2



JASIS&T
11


LibCul
12

Field Co-citation Analysis 29