Evolution of Library and Information Science, 1965–2005:
Content Analysis of Journal Articles
Otto Tuomaala, Kalervo Järvelin, and Pertti Vakkari
School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere, Kanslerinrinne 1, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland.
E-mail: otto.tuomaala@gmail.com, {kalervo.jarvelin, pertti.vakkari}@uta.fi
This article first analyzes library and information
science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS
journals in 2005. It also examines the development of
LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets
for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors
report (a) how the research articles are distributed by
topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies,
and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the
largest research areas in LIS by this measure were
information storage and retrieval, scientific communi-
cation, library and information-service activities, and
information seeking. The same research areas consti-
tuted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years
since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most
popular area of research over the years. The proportion
of research on library and information-service activities
decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information
seeking and of scientific communication grew during
the period studied. The viewpoint of research has
shifted from library and information organizations to
end users and development of systems for the latter.
The proportion of empirical research strategies was
high and rose over time, with the survey method being
the single most important method. However, attention
to evaluation and experiments increased considerably
after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system
analysis, description, and design were quite popular,
but declining. The most significant changes from 1965
to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and
information-service activities and the growth of
research into information seeking and scientific com-
munication.
Introduction
The present article has two aims. First, we analyze
library and information science (LIS) research articles
Received April 22, 2013; revised May 28, 2013; accepted May 28, 2013
© 2014 ASIS&T • Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.23034
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ••(••):••–••, 2014
published in core LIS journals in 2005. Second, we
examine the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in
light of comparable data sets for the years 1965, 1985, and
2005. In both cases, we report (a) how the research pub-
lications are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches,
research strategies, and methods have been applied during
the span of time under review. The analysis reveals the
foci of LIS research and their coherence, changes, and
neglected areas. It contributes to our understanding of what
LIS is, how it has evolved, and how it may evolve. Our
data sets do not, however, reflect the most current trends in
the field.
Although the term information studies has gained trac-
tion as the name of the discipline, we use library and infor-
mation science (LIS) for the sake of comparison. The
unifying characteristic of the discipline is study of the pro-
vision of access to desired information. This definition is
based on a tradition of defining LIS from Bradford and
Shera to Belkin, Buckland, and Wersig (as cited in Vakkari
1994).
Recent LIS literature provides many statistical analyses
of LIS research publications, including work by Åström
(2007), Zhao and Strotmann (2008), and Milojević and
colleagues (2011). Åström’s (2007) cocitation analysis
studied research fronts in LIS journals published in 1990–
2004, whereas Zhao and Strotmann’s study investigating
research clusters in LIS was based on enriched cocitation
analysis and covered LIS articles published during 1996–
2005. Milojević and colleagues performed coword analysis
of the cognitive structure of LIS in articles published
between 1988 and 2007. The present study covers the entire
scope of LIS and is longitudinal. The closest predecessor
of the present article is the study by Järvelin and Vakkari
(1993) that covers 1965, 1975, and 1985. It has served as a
model for a range of quantitative LIS analyses over
varying periods, years, and/or geographic areas. The present
article relies on and complements Järvelin and Vakkari’s
analysis in observing the year 2005. Thus we provide an
account of the profile of LIS research, covering the 40 years
from 1965 to 2005. As in the aforementioned article, we use
a systematic hierarchical classification of LIS topics, which
differentiates among the major fields of LIS research and,
furthermore, among subfields thereof. In addition, we
analyze strategies, data collection methods, and methods of
analysis among the methodological aspects of the studies.
Furthermore, we examine and classify the perspective taken
on information dissemination (e.g., the intermediary’s or
end user’s viewpoint) and the social level (e.g., individual or
organizational) of the object of study among the approaches
in the research.
As in most earlier studies, the source of data consists of
research articles in core international LIS journals (see
Appendix A). This article summarizes and analyzes data
covering the years 1965, 1985 (Järvelin & Vakkari, 1990),
and 2005.
Literature
Past analyses of LIS have been either empirical or con-
ceptual in nature. Below we discuss both, with a focus on the
more recent empirical analyses.
Empirical Studies of LIS Literature
Most content analyses of international LIS literature are
dated. The majority of the content analyses have investi-
gated journals published in the 1970s and 1980s (Atkins,
1988; Buttlar, 1991; Feehan et al., 1987; Järvelin &
Vakkari, 1993; Kumpulainen, 1991; Peritz, 1980). Järvelin
and Vakkari’s (1993) content analysis is among the most
sophisticated. Their study covered 3 decades and included
37 LIS journals published in 1965, 1975, and 1985. After
systematically investigating the research topics, viewpoints,
and research methods in LIS in those years, Järvelin and
Vakkari (1990) argued that LIS was dominated at the time
by a library- and information-service-centered paradigm.
The authors proposed that it would be useful to go beyond
one-sided attachment to institutions because that would
improve quality and enrich the research conducted in the
field.
Only a few content analyses investigating LIS in the early
21st century have been performed. Koufogiannakis and
colleagues (2004) covered 91 LIS journals and 2,664 journal
articles published in 2001. The emphasis of the study was on
evidence-based librarianship. The LIS literature was classi-
fied into five domains: information access and retrieval,
collections, management, education, and reference. Library
history and professional issues were identified as two other
possible domains. In addition, the types of study applied in
these LIS domains were investigated. Most studies reported
on in LIS journals have relied on descriptive research
methods. However, in the information access and retrieval
domain, comparative research methods were more popular
2 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
than descriptive ones, with the same being true for biblio-
metric methods in the collections domain.
Hider and Pymm (2008) studied research methods
applied in scholarly LIS journal articles published in 2005.
On the basis of the classification system developed by
Järvelin and Vakkari (1990), Hider and Pymm analyzed 561
research articles published in 2005 in 20 major LIS journals.
Journals were selected on the basis of their field placement
in an Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journal-citation
report. Half of the selected journals are also included in the
present study.
Hider and Pymm (2008) found that the empirical LIS
research published in top journals relied mainly on a couple
of strategies: survey and experimentation. However, wide
variety was seen in the research methods used by researchers
working in the field. Transaction-log analysis has gained
popularity among researchers studying databases and infor-
mation retrieval. Qualitative and bibliometric research
methods were also shown to be well established.
Along with research methods, the use of theories in LIS
has been studied via content analysis. Pettigrew and
McKechnie (2001) investigated 1,160 articles in six major
LIS journals from 1993 to 1998 and found that some theory
was applied in 31.4% of the published works.
Later, Kim and Yeong (2006) studied content analysis
theory’s use and development in 1,661 LIS journal articles
published in four journals from 1984 to 2003. They found
that application of the theory was present in 41.4% of the
articles. However, Kim and Yeong noted that there was a
decline in theory building, particularly in international jour-
nals published between 1999 and 2003. Other recent content
analyses of LIS include studies in particular research areas
(e.g., Julien et al., 2011) and investigations of LIS research
conducted in different countries (e.g., Rochester & Vakkari,
2003).
In addition to content analysis, other bibliometric
research methods have been applied to delimit the field and
to identify research areas within LIS. Through the categori-
zation employed by Sugimoto and colleagues (2011), these
bibliometric studies can be classified as bibliometric analy-
ses of journal articles (e.g., Åström, 2007; Davarpanah &
Aslekia, 2008; González-Alcaide et al., 2008; Larivière
et al., 2012; Milojević et al., 2011) and bibliometric analyses
of authors (e.g., Åström, 2010; White & McCain, 1998;
Zhao & Strotmann, 2008). Among other studies of LIS are
investigations of academic dissertations (Sugimoto et al.,
2011), studies of the development of information retrieval
research in conference papers (Sugimoto & McCain, 2010),
and investigations of interdisciplinary relationships involv-
ing LIS (e.g., Cronin & Meho, 2008; Huang & Chang,
2012).
Nonempirical Studies of LIS
In addition to empirical analysis of LIS literature, several
conceptual analyses of the discipline have been conducted.
Ingwersen (1992), Saracevic (1999), and Vakkari (1994)
have discussed the origins, development, and content of
LIS. In general, LIS is seen as having developed from
two distinct research traditions: library science and
documentation.
Nolin (2007) identified recent trends in LIS, such as the
historical, reflexive, and cognitive turns. He defines turns as
some sort of cognitive interruption within research tradi-
tions. Turns should be understood as rhetorical acts, with
some more influential than others. Later, Nolin and Åström
(2010) continued the analysis of recent turns and their impli-
cations for LIS. The cognitive turn of the late 1970s can be
considered to be the most influential turn in the field of LIS
(Nolin, 2007). Usually, the cognitive turn and the cognitive
viewpoint are regarded as the same. However, Nolin under-
scores that the cognitive turn should be understood as a
wider phenomenon affecting many disciplines.
Advocates of the cognitive viewpoint in LIS have
included influential researchers such as Brookes, Belkin,
and Ingwersen. A common feature in the arguments of the
proponents of the cognitive viewpoint is that all informa-
tion processes and processors are, in essence, cognitive in
nature. From a historical perspective, the cognitive view-
point in information science could be interpreted as a
response to narrow, system-oriented research in the field.
The cognitive viewpoint has been criticized for neglecting
sociocultural aspects of information processes and proces-
sors (Frohmann, 1992; Hjørland, 2002; Vakkari, 1994).
According to Hjørland (2002), by relying on methodologi-
cal individualism and rationalism, the cognitive viewpoint
tends to psychologize the epistemological issues. Hjørland
proposes as an alternative the sociocognitive view, which in
his words is used to epistemologize psychological issues, to
see individual knowledge from historical, cultural, and
social perspectives.
Summary
In conclusion, a few general observations can be noted
with regard to recent trends in information studies. Accord-
ing to a number of empirical and conceptual studies, LIS has
undergone a major shift from investigation of systems and
institutions to investigation of individuals, end users, or
actors (e.g., Belkin, 1990; González-Alcaide et al., 2008;
Hjørland, 2002; Vakkari, 1994; Zhao & Strotmann, 2008).
However, as Hjørland (2010) has noted, the dichotomy of
users versus systems is problematic at the conceptual level.
Despite this, it can be concluded that empirical studies on
LIS provide clear evidence of the increase in the user’s
viewpoint in the field.
Earlier research also supports Saracevic’s (1999) view of
LIS as a technologically driven discipline. Information and
web technologies have become the most frequently studied
areas within LIS (e.g., Åström, 2007; Milojević et al., 2011;
Zhao & Strotmann, 2008). Furthermore, interdisciplinary
relationships between LIS and computer sciences strength-
ened in the 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., Cronin & Meho,
2008; Larivière et al., 2012).
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014
This brief review of related studies suggests that there is a
need for systematic content analysis of research topics, view-
points, and methodology in LIS in the early 21st century. The
more recent content analyses addressing LIS have focused on
specific viewpoints, such as research methods or theory
development (e.g., Hider & Pymm, 2008; Pettigrew &
McKechnie, 2001). The present study contributes a system-
atic analysis of core LIS journal articles in 2005 and analysis
of the development of the field between 1965 and 2005.
Methods
Classification System
Articles’ topics were classified via the Library and Infor-
mation Science topic classification (see Appendix B). This
widely used classification system (e.g., Hider & Pymm,
2008; Rochester & Vakkari, 2003) was originally presented
by Järvelin and Vakkari (1990). The major classes are the
following:
010: The professions in L&I services
020: Library history
030: Publishing (including book history)
100: Education in LIS
200: Methodology
300: Analysis of LIS
400: Library and information-service (L&I) activities
500: Information storage and retrieval (IS&R)
600: Information seeking
700: Scientific and professional communication
800: Other aspects of LIS
Classes 400–700 also included subclasses (see
Appendix B). In view of the development of the field, the
subclasses of the major content classes had to be updated.
Otherwise, the classification result would have been unin-
formative (e.g., with many entries falling into the subclass
type Other studies). On the basis of a pilot classification of
the 2005 data, the following updates were made:
470: The Automation class was augmented with the
concept of digital libraries.
531–533: The classes of information retrieval and biblio-
graphic and nonbibliographic databases were
removed. As new classes, studies of Text retrieval
systems in test collections, of Other media (systems)
in test collections, and of web-based retrieval
(systems) in test collections were created.
540: A new class was added, Digital information
resources.
550: A new class was added, Interactive information
retrieval.
560: A new class was created, Other study of information
storage and retrieval.
641, 642: The Information-seeking behavior class was divided
into the classes Task-based information-seeking and
Other information-seeking.
660: The class Information management was comple-
mented with the concept of knowledge management.
3
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 730: The class Webometrics was added under the main
class Scientific and professional communication.
Only LIS articles were included in the study. Each article
was classified under a single main class; in the main classes
400–700, only the subclasses were used for classification.
When an article had many topics, an attempt was made to
identify its main topic. For instance, an article on education
in information retrieval was classified as education and an
article on information retrieval for education as information
retrieval.
The study approach used in an article was classified in
accordance with the classification’s viewpoint on informa-
tion dissemination and social level (Dogan & Rokkan 1969;
see Appendix B). Classification of the viewpoint on infor-
mation dissemination was based on traditionally recognized
actors in the process of information dissemination (informa-
tion producer, intermediary, end user, LIS educator, etc.).
The use of this classification has been described in more
detail by Järvelin and Vakkari (1990).
The classification of social level differentiates among the
individual, organizational, and societal levels, also separat-
ing out multilevel analyses. The class Individual was used
when the objects studied in the article were individuals. For
example, a study of information-seeking behavior through
analysis of task-based information seeking has this social
level. Not applicable was used when the objects studied in
the article had no level of social organization, as in studies of
bibliometric laws or digital collections. The use of this clas-
sification has also been described in more depth by Järvelin
and Vakkari (1990).
The methodological aspect of a study consists of
research strategy, data-collection method, type of analysis,
and type of investigation (Järvelin & Vakkari, 1990). Clas-
sifications for the first two are used in this article and set
forth in Appendix B. Research strategy is an overall
approach to the study within which, for example, the deci-
sions pertaining to data collection and the type of analysis
are made. Among the typical strategies for empirical
research are the Historical, survey, and Qualitative strate-
gies. The other main strategies are referred to as conceptual
research strategy (e.g., verbal argumentation or concept
analysis), mathematical or logical, strategy, and system and
software analysis and design.
In the original classification system of Järvelin and
Vakkari (1990), evaluation and experiment were dealt with
as different research strategies. However, as Hider and
Pymm (2008) have noted, both surveys and experiments
may have elements of evaluation. Also, in the pilot classifi-
cations for the present study, an overlap of the experiment
and evaluation classes was detected. Therefore, these two
classes were merged.
Empirical research uses data derived from diverse data-
collection methods. Examples of data-collection methods
are questionnaires, content analysis, and historical source
analysis, as listed in the classification for the variable data-
4 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 1. Analysis of classification reliability: Krippendorff’s alpha for
three classifiers.
Variable Krippendorff’s alpha
Topic 0.684
Main topic 0.836
Research variable 0.903
Viewpoint on the information-dissemination 0.657
process
Social level 0.760
Research strategy 0.788
Data-collection method 0.738
Type of analysis 0.757
Type of investigation 0.682
collection method. For the analysis for 2005, a new method
of data collection was denoted for the purposes of the study,
IR experiment.
Each article was classified under one content class in
each classification category. The data for 2005 were classi-
fied by one of the researchers. For reliability analysis, each
of the three researchers classified 100 articles independently.
Reliability was calculated by means of Krippendorff’s
alpha. As Hayes and Krippendorff (2007) have noted, this
relatively rarely used algorithm is one of the most sophisti-
cated methods for calculation of reliability.
According to Krippendorff (2004), reliability is good
when alpha > 0.8, whereas tentative conclusions are accept-
able when alpha > 0.67. The reliability of the main topic and
research vs. nonresearch variables was good (>0.8), whereas
that of other variables was satisfactory (0.8 > alpha > 0.67),
except for the viewpoint on information dissemination
(see Table 1). Variables with satisfactory reliability can be
grouped into categories of higher and lower acceptability,
depending on the value of the coefficient. If the coefficient is
closer to 0.8 than to 0.67, it belongs to the higher-
acceptability group. Social level, research strategy, data-
collection method, and type of analysis belong to the latter
group, whereas subtopic falls into the lower one.
The variable for the viewpoint on information dissemi-
nation had the lowest reliability. Therefore, use of this
variable should not be considered reliable. However, its
inclusion is justifiable on account of its essential role in
the analysis of the development of LIS. The inclusion of
this variable is also reasonable because of the closeness of
Krippendorff’s alpha to the limit for satisfactory reliability.
A plausible explanation for the low reliabilities in the
present study is that the classification originally developed
by Järvelin and Vakkari (1990) was somewhat outdated. As
empirical studies (e.g., Åström, 2007; Hider & Pymm, 2008;
Larivière et al., 2012) have shown, research areas, topics,
viewpoints, and methods in LIS changed between the 1980s
and early 2000s. A major challenge in the present study was
that of updating the classification system to account for LIS
research in 2005 and at the same time maintain comparabil-
ity with the research conducted by Järvelin and Vakkari
(1990, 1993).
The Data
If the aim is to give a representative account of LIS
research, the source data should include all research publica-
tions in the field. The criteria for what constitutes LIS
research are given in part by the classification system for LIS
topics: research publications whose topic can be positioned
within one of its classes belong to LIS. However, it is difficult
to identify which publications contain research fulfilling
these criteria. Therefore, research publications in the field are
defined ostensibly through choosing of articles from the core
scholarly journals in LIS. Identification of the latter poses
another challenge, because journals may change orientation
over time, some may die out, and new ones may emerge.
Limiting the data to journal articles causes some bias in
the results. Not all types of LIS research are equally well
represented in scholarly journal articles. As Sugimoto
(2011) has noted, certain disciplines favor certain genres.
However, research articles form the core of the literature
cited in LIS. Moreover, journal articles have been almost the
sole source of data in recent studies of LIS research publi-
cations (e.g., Hider & Pymm, 2008; Koufogiannakis et al.,
2004; Milojević et al., 2011).
Periodization
The 20-year time intervals of our samples cannot reflect
occasional peaks between the years 1965, 1985, and 2005.
However, all long-term changes in LIS research in the inter-
vening years are reflected in the samples. The year 1965
represents the growth and great excitement of the 1960s in
LIS, resulting from the Cranfield studies, prospects of com-
puterization, and increased funding in the post-Sputnik era.
In 1985, international markets for (bibliographic) IR had
matured, funding of traditional LIS schools was declining,
and new technology (e.g., CD-ROM and hypermedia) and
new themes (e.g., information management) were emerging.
By 2005, information-seeking research had changed radi-
cally in the wake of the Dervin and Nilan (1986) review. IR
experiments were flourishing, and research on information
seeking and retrieval on the web had matured.
Selection of Journals
The selection of journals is based on purposive selection
(Järvelin & Vakkari, 1990; Powell, 1985) of core journals.
Core journals are deemed to be such scholarly LIS journals
as have a wide distribution and an international editorial
board and publication policy and that have been character-
ized as core journals earlier (e.g., Åström, 2007; Järvelin &
Vakkari, 1990; Koufogiannakis et al., 2004; Zhao &
Strotmann, 2008). Because of the criteria, many LIS jour-
nals focusing on specialized LIS domains had to be
excluded. The source data comprise the 1965, 1985, and
2005 volumes of the core journals of LIS.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014
Widely distributed but clearly professional journals
were excluded. The study sample for 2005 consists of 29
journals. In total, 22 of them were included in the research
sample for 1985 and 10 for 1965. The journal set for the
longitudinal analysis comprises, in all, 42 journals (see
Appendix A).
The journal sets differ across the years examined,
because some core journals of 1965 had ceased to exist
before 2005, and new core journals have emerged since
1965 or 1985. Some of the journals, such as Knowledge
Organization and Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, which were published both in 1985
and in 2005, had to be excluded from the data for 2005 on
account of budget and access issues. However, most of the
journals selected by Järvelin and Vakkari (1993) were
included in the data for 2005.
The basic principle in the selection of data was that
journals that were published before 1985 but not included in
Järvelin and Vakkari’s content analyses were excluded from
study. Despite this, one exception was made for 2005. The
journal Scientometrics was included in the analysis of LIS in
2005 on account of its highly regarded and unique status as
reported from earlier studies (e.g., Koufogiannakis et al.,
2004; Milojević et al., 2011).
As Åström (2002) has noted, it is reasonable to assume
that the selection of literature affects research results. There-
fore, the inclusion of Scientometrics in the analysis raises
some issues of comparability between the years considered.
Because articles published in Scientometrics contributed
almost 13% of all research data, Scientometrics was
excluded from the longitudinal analysis comparing the years
1965, 1985, and 2005. Concentration on scholarly journals
only in English in the year-2005 sample may have also
created some limitations to the comparability and general-
izability of the research results. However, the most cited
international LIS journals are in English, almost without
exception.
Selection of Articles and Basis of Analysis
For the journals selected, all full-length articles were
included in the samples and classified as scholarly articles
or professional articles. The main criterion in the determi-
nation of what constitutes a scholarly article was as in the
earlier studies: Research is an inquiry wherein the goal is
to elicit, through a systematic method, some new facts,
concepts, or ideas (Järvelin & Vakkari, 1990; Nour, 1985;
Peritz, 1980). The key concepts of method and goal help
one distinguish scholarly articles from the rest. Excluded
were editorials, letters to the editor, news and news-like
reviews, and advertisements. The material for analysis
consisted of the abstract pages of the articles. When the
abstract was missing or insufficient for classification, its
introduction or an otherwise sufficient set of pages was
used.
5
DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 2. Topics of LIS scholarly articles in 2005 (n = 718). TABLE 3. Viewpoints on the information-dissemination process in 2005
(n = 718).
Subtopic Main
Topic (%) topic (%) Viewpoint Percentage

Professions 1.4 Several interconnected phases 21

Library history 4.2 The producer’s viewpoint 6
Publishing and book history 0.6 The seller’s viewpoint 1
Education in LIS 0.3 The intermediary’s viewpoint 3
Methodology 0.6 The intermediary organization’s viewpoint 16
Analysis of LIS 2.8 The end user’s viewpoint 15
L&I service activities 17.0 The end user organization’s viewpoint 5
circulation or interlibrary loan 0.6 The developer’s viewpoint 12
collections 1.7 The educator’s viewpoint 2
information or reference service 1.4 Not applicable 20
user education 1.7 Total 101
buildings and facilities 0.0
administration or planning 2.2
automation 6.4
research topic, with only three articles investigating research
other L&I service activities 1.3
several interconnected L&I activities 1.8 methods in LIS. Along with methodology, the topics
IS&R 30.1 publishing and printing, professions, and education in
cataloguing 1.8 LIS received very little attention.
classification and indexing 7.1 Within library and information-service activities, the most
text-retrieval systems in test collections 3.9
frequently studied subtopic was automation and digital
other media (systems) in test collections 0.7
web-based retrieval in test collections 4.6 libraries (6.4%). Circulation or interlibrary loan and build-
digital information resources 1.8 ings and facilities received very little attention or none at all.
interactive retrieval 7.7 Other research topics within library and information-service
other information storage and retrieval research 2.5 activities were fairly equal in popularity (1.3% to 2.2%).
Information seeking 12.3
The combined share of interactive information retrieval
information dissemination 0.1
use/users of information channels/sources 0.7 and information retrieval in test collections was 17% of all
use of L&I services 2.8 scholarly articles, making information retrieval by far the
task-based information-seeking 2.6 most studied topic in LIS. The second most studied topic
other types of information-seeking studies 0.7 within information storage and retrieval was classification
information use 0.8
and indexing. Other research topics in this area received
information management 4.5
Scientific and professional communication 24.3 considerably less attention.
scientific or professional publications 4.5 Among the studies within information-seeking research,
citation patterns and structures 6.5 the subfields with most frequent publishing were information
webometrics 2.9 management (4.5%), use and users of library and information
other aspects of communication 10.4
services (2.8%), and task-based information seeking (2.6%).
Other LIS topics 6.4
Total 100.0 Other topics within information seeking received very little
attention (0.1–0.8%).
Within scientific and professional communication, the
subclass other study of scientific and professional communi-
Findings cation was the largest (10.4%). This class included various
bibliometric and scientometric studies, such as studies of
Year 2005
bibliometric laws. The shares of other subclasses within
In total, the study sample for 2005 comprises 1,024 scientific and professional communication ranged from 2.9%
articles, of which 70% were research articles and 30% to 6.5%.
professional articles. In the following subsections, only
research articles are analyzed. Viewpoint on the information-dissemination process. Most
often, research articles combined several viewpoints on infor-
Distribution of scholarly articles by topic. The largest mation dissemination (21%). Intermediary organization’s
research area in LIS in 2005 was information storage and (16%), end user’s (15%), and developer’s (12%) viewpoints
retrieval (30%; see Table 2). The next most popular research were also commonly taken. Other views of information dis-
topics were scientific and professional communication semination were less popular (1% to 6%). In total, in 20% of
(24%), library and information-service activities (17%), and the scholarly articles, no viewpoint on information dissemi-
information seeking (12%). Other research topics in LIS nation was applicable. This relatively high number is due
were quite rarely studied. Among these other topics, library partially to the large proportion of scholarly articles on scien-
history (4.2%) and analysis of LIS (2.8%) were the most tific and professional communication, in which the viewpoint
popular. Methodology in LIS was almost nonexistent as a on information dissemination is usually neutral (Table 3).

6 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014

DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 4. The social level of research in 2005 (n = 718). TABLE 6. Data-collection methods for LIS scholarly articles in 2005
(n = 718).
Social level Percentage
Data-collection method Percentage
Individual 21
Organizational 16 Questionnaire or interview(s) 15.0
Societal 9 Observation 0.3
Multilevel 2 Thinking aloud 0.1
Not applicable 52 Content analysis 2.9
Total 101 Citation analysis 6.3
Historical source analysis 5.3
Several methods of collection 14.3
Use of data collected earlier 5.0
TABLE 5. Research strategies of scholarly articles in 2005 (n = 718). IR experiment 16.9
Other data-collection method 9.3
Research strategy Substrategy (%) Major strategy (%) Not applicable 24.0
Total 100.0
Empirical research strategy 76.0
historical method 5.4
survey method 26.9
TABLE 7. Types of analysis applied in LIS scholarly articles in 2005
qualitative method 4.9
(n = 718).
evaluation method or experiment 20.9
case or action research method 4.3 Type of analysis Percentage
content or protocol analysis 2.6
citation analysis 6.8 Quantitative 58.4
other bibliometric method 3.9 Qualitative 14.1
other empirical method 0.4 Mixed type 3.5
Conceptual research strategy 13.1 Not applicable 23.9
Mathematical or logical 3.3 Total 100.0
System/software analysis/design 5.8
Literature review 1.5
Other 0.0 evaluation and experiment were the two most popular
Total 100.0 research strategies.
Combining several data-collection methods was also
common in the scholarly articles (14.3%). In addition, the
Social level. In 52% of the articles, it was not possible to proportion of the class other data-collection method was
determine social level (see Table 4). This is due partially to quite large (9.3%). Considering these observations and the
the large proportion of articles dealing with tools and tech- several distinct data-collection methods listed in the classi-
nical solutions in the field of LIS. The most common social fication system for the present study, one can conclude that
level in research articles was the individual one (21%). a wide range of data-collection methods has been employed
Focus on organizational level (16%) was the next most in the LIS field. The large proportion, 24%, of not applicable
common. As for the other social levels, analyses of societal reflects the large share of nonempirical articles, such as
(9%) and, especially, multiple levels (2%) were rare. mathematical, conceptual, or theoretical ones.

Research strategies. The majority of the research articles
were empirical (76%; see Table 5). Nonempirical research
strategies accounted for 24% of the articles. The most fre-
quently employed research strategies were survey (26.9%),
evaluation or experiment (20.9%), and conceptual (13.1%).
Together, these research strategies covered almost 60% of
all research articles. In addition to the aforementioned major
strategies, wide variety could be seen in other research strat-
egies. However, the fact that the three most popular research
strategies have such a large proportion indicates that the
research methodology in the LIS field is centered on only a
few research strategies.
Methods of data collection. As Järvelin and Vakkari
(1990) have noted, it is natural to assume that the selection
of data-collection method reflects the research strategy
selected. The two most frequently used data-collection
methods were IR experiment (17%) and questionnaire or
interview(s) (15%; see Table 6). Respectively, survey and
Type of analysis and type of investigation. Among the
analysis types, the most prevalent one was clearly quantita-
tive (58.4%; see Table 7). Scholarly articles employing
qualitative analysis accounted for only 14.1% of the sample.
At the same time, studies employing both quantitative and
qualitative analysis were remarkably rare (3.5%).
Most scholarly articles were either descriptive (39%) or
comparative (29%) (see Table 8). Explanatory studies were
considerably less common (8%). Among the nonempirical
investigation types, the most common were theoretical
(10%) and system description (6%). Among the other
nonempirical investigation types, conceptual (2.5%) and
methodological (1.3%) were very rarely used.
Trends in LIS Over 40 Years
A clear linear growth trend can be seen in the proportion
of research articles among all articles from 1965 to 2005
(see Table 9). The proportion of research articles has

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014 7

DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 8. Investigation types for LIS scholarly articles in 2005 The research areas scientific and professional communi-
(n = 718; %). cation (4.9% to 7.3% to 13.4%) and information seeking
Type of investigation Subtype Main type (7.8% to 6.0% to 14.2%) have grown substantially. The
largest amount of the change in the shares of these research
Empirical research type 76.0 areas occurred between 1985 and 2005.
Descriptive 39.3
Comparative 28.4
There were considerably fewer articles on the remaining
Explanatory 8.3 topics. The share of publishing and book history (5.6% to
Nonempirical research type 24.0 3.1% to 0.8%) shows a downward trend, whereas that of
Conceptual 2.5 library history has an ascending one (2.8% to 3.8% to 4.8%).
Theoretical 10.3 Interest in education in LIS peaked in 1985, after which it
Methodological 1.3
System description (constructive) 6.0
dropped clearly. The proportion of professions (4.9% to
Other type 3.9 5.6% to 1.6%) was relatively steady through 1965 and 1985,
Total 100 with a trend of decline toward 2005.
The most noteworthy changes in the proportions of
articles on methodology (7.8% to 0.9% to 0.5%) and analy-
TABLE 9. Distribution of article types in 1965, 1985, and 2005 (%).
sis of LIS (5.6% to 2.4% to 3.2%) occurred between
Article type 1965 (n = 467) 1985 (n = 833) 2005 (n = 848) 1965 and 1985. Methodology especially lost popularity
over this time. Interest in methodological or paradigmatic
Scholarly 30 54 72
Professional 70 46 28 questions in LIS has decreased considerably, remaining
Total 100 100 100 scarce from the 1980s onward. The class other LIS topics
grew considerably from 1965 to 1985, after which it
declined slightly. Below we analyze the topic distributions
TABLE 10. Distribution of topics among the main classes in the articles
in 1965, 1985, and 1985 (%).
within the subclasses. The figures are drawn from
Appendix C.
1965 1985 2005 Within L&I service activities, the most popular subfield
LIS topic (n = 142) (n = 449) (n = 626) has been automation and digital libraries (7.8% to 3.6% to
Professions 4.9 5.6 1.6 7.3%), although a decline appears in 1985. Collections
Library history 2.8 3.8 4.8 (6.3% to 7.1% to 1.9%) were among the most studied topics
Publishing and book history 5.6 3.1 0.8 in 1965 and 1985, after which the proportion decreased
Education in LIS 2.1 4.7 0.3 significantly. The proportion of circulation or interlibrary
Methodology 7.8 0.9 0.5
Analysis of LIS 5.6 2.4 3.2
loan studies (2.8% to 2.9% to 0.6%) too was steady in the
L&I service activities 25.4 27.2 19.5 period 1965–1985, with a substantial declining trend toward
IS&R 32.4 29.2 34.5 2005. The interest in user education and information
Information-seeking 7.8 6.0 14.1 literacy increased from 1985 to 2005, and the proportion of
Scientific and professional 4.9 7.3 13.4 administration and planning studies peaked in 1985 and fell
communication
Other LIS topics 1.0 10.2 7.3
to nearer its initial share by 2005.
Total 100.3 100.0 100.0 Within IS&R, clearly the strongest emphasis was given to
information retrieval along with classification and indexing.
However, there exists a shift within IR studies from biblio-
graphical databases toward web-based retrieval and interac-
increased from 30% to 72%. The most significant growth in tive information retrieval as 2005 approaches. The share of
number occurred between 1965 and 1985. As in the analysis cataloguing seems to have declined slowly over the years
of 2005, only research articles are analyzed in the following (4.2% to 3.1% to 2.1%). Reliability of comparisons among
sections. the years is somewhat limited, given the changes in the IR
classes affecting the data for 2005. Nonetheless, the trends
in the research field are clear.
Trends in the Distribution of Research Articles
Information management (1.4% to 0.9% to 5.1%)
Across Topics
became the most frequently studied subclass within infor-
Over the years, the two largest areas of research have mation seeking from 1985 to 2005. Information-seeking
been information storage and retrieval and then LIS services behavior also received increasing attention during this
(see Table 10). The proportion of IR has grown slightly period. The combined share of task-based and other
(32.4% to 29.2% to 34.4%), whereas the proportion of LIS information-seeking behavior for 2005 was 3.8%, which is
services has decreased (25.4% to 27.2% to 19.6%). The greater than the share for information-seeking behavior in
trends are slightly curvilinear, because from 1965 to 1985 the years 1965 and 1985. There appears to have been rela-
the proportion of IR research decreased and that of LIS tively steady interest in both conventional library and
services increased, but after that the trend was in favor of IR information service use and users studies (2.8% to 2.2%
research (see Table 9). to 3.2%). The subclass other channels or sources of

8 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014

DOI: 10.1002/asi
information (2.1% to 1.3% to 0.8%) waned slightly toward
2005. Other subclasses within information seeking were
rarely studied through the years.
Scientific or professional publishing (2.8% to 2.2% to
2.6%) and of citation patterns and structures (1.4% to 3.3%
to 3.4%) were generally the most popular topics in scientific
and professional communication, although other aspects of
communication was the largest area in 2005 (0.7% to 1.8%
to 4.8%). Also, the new research area webometrics (2.7%)
had established itself by this time.
Most Frequent Topics in the Research Articles
The 10 most popular topics in research articles in each of
the years 1965, 1985, and 2005 are shown in Table 11. In
1965, there was strong emphasis on classification and index-
ing (21.8%). The next most studied topics were, in decreas-
ing order, automation (7.8%), methodology (7.8%), and
collections (6.3%). The broad subclass information retrieval
(12.4%) was the most popular topic in 1985. Other fre-
quently seen topics were collections (7.1%), administration
and planning (5.8%), professions (5.6%), and classification
and indexing (5.6%). In 2005, the four most studied topics
were interactive information retrieval (8.8%), classification
and indexing (8.1%), automation and digital libraries
(7.6%), and web-based retrieval (5.3%).
The modifications of the classification system for 2005
imposed some limitations on comparability of research results
among the years. Within information storage and retrieval,
some new classes were created and some old classes removed.
Despite these limitations, clear trends can be seen in the distri-
butions of the most frequent topics. In the period 1985–2005, a
shift appears from topics within library and information activi-
ties to topics among other areas of LIS (e.g., information man-
agement, citation practices and structures, and library history).
The proportion of information retrieval (in 2005, interactive IR
and web-based and text-retrieval systems) has grown steadily,
while the share of classification and indexing has declined,
although there is a slight recovery in 2005. In addition to clas-
sification and indexing and information retrieval, automation
has constantly remained among the most frequent topics. Con-
siderable change is found in the decline in studies examining
methodology and analysis of LIS after 1965.
Viewpoint on the information-dissemination process. The
most significant trend is the decline in intermediary’s (14%
to 8% to 3%) or intermediary organization’s (21% to 29% to
18%) viewpoints in research, coupled with the increase in
end user’s (11% to 8% to 17%) and developer’s (7% to 6%
to 14%) viewpoints (see Table 12). Also, research connect-
ing several viewpoints (8% to 12% to 22%) has increased
considerably. In addition to shifts in viewpoints, the data
revealed that the proportion of studies without viewpoints
(31% to 20% to 13%) had decreased significantly. Interme-
diary organizations’ position was at its strongest in 1985,
when it covered 29% of all studies.
The share of producer’s viewpoint (1% to 10% to 3%)
peaked in 1985. For intermediary’s viewpoint, the share
decreased toward 2005. Otherwise, it can be concluded that
most of the significant shifts in viewpoints occurred within
the period 1985–2005 (see Table 11).

TABLE 11. Ten most popular topics in the articles in 1965, 1985, and Social level. For roughly half of the research articles, it
2005 (%). was not possible to determine the social level (see Table 13).
This is partially because many articles dealt with the tools
1965 1985 2005
Topic (n = 142) (n = 449) (n = 626) and methods used in LIS and were therefore often indiffer-
ent with respect to social level. In the remaining studies, the
Interactive IR 8.8
Classification and indexing 21.8 5.6 8.1
Automation and digital libraries 7.8 3.6 7.3
Web-based retrieval (systems) 5.3 TABLE 12. Views on the information-dissemination phase in the articles
Information management 5.1
in 1965, 1985, and 2005 (%; dash indicates <0.6%).
Other aspects of scientific or 4.8
professional communication Viewpoint 1965 (n = 142) 1985 (n = 449) 2005 (n = 626)
Text-retrieval systems 4.5
Library history 3.8 4.8 Several 8 12 22
Citation patterns and structures, 3.4 interconnected
The use of L&I services 3.2 phases
Information retrieval 4.2 12.7 Producer’s 1 10 3
Collections 6.3 7.1 Seller’s 0 – –
Professions 4.9 5.6 Intermediary’s 14 8 3
Administration or planning 5.8 Intermediary 21 29 18
Education in LIS 4.7 organization’s
Bibliographic databases/bibliographies 4.2 End user’s 11 8 17
Non-bibliographic databases 3.6 End-user 1 2 5
Analysis of LIS 5.6 organization’s
Methodology 7.8 Developer’s 7 6 14
Publishing and book history 5.6 Educator’s 1 4 2
Cataloguing 4.2 Not applicable 36 21 16
Other L&I service activities 3.5 Total 100 100 101

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014 9

DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 13. Social level in the articles in 1965, 1985, and 2005 (%). TABLE 15. Data-collection methods in the research articles in 1965,
1985, and 2005 (%; dash indicates <0.5%).
Social level 1965 (n = 142) 1985 (n = 449) 2005 (n = 626)
1965 1985 2005
Individual 13 17 24 Data-collection method (n = 142) (n = 449) (n = 626)
Organizational 19 26 17
Societal 1 9 6 Questionnaire or interview(s) 17 17 17
Multilevel 0 3 2 Observation 0 1 –
Not applicable 66 45 52 Thinking aloud 0 0 –
Total 99 100 101 Content analysis 0 2 3
Citation analysis 0 4 4
Historical source analysis 11 11 6
Several methods of 2 2 15
TABLE 14. Research strategies in the articles in 1965, 1985, and 2005 collection
(%). Use of data collected earlier 4 5 3
IR experiment 20
1965 1985 2005 Other data-collection method 19 15 7
Research strategy (n = 142) (n = 449) (n = 626) Not applicable 48 43 25
Total 101 100 100
Empirical research strategy 48.5 56.0 74.8
Historical method 10.6 10.7 6.2
Survey method 22.5 22.9 25.7
Qualitative method 0.7 1.6 5.6
Evaluation and/or 9.8 7.2 22.6 significant increase can be seen in the use of experiments and
experiment
evaluation over 1985–2005. In 2005, they were almost as
Case or action research 2.8 3.8 5.0
method popular as survey. In the same period, the proportion of
Content or protocol 0.0 1.1 2.9 qualitative methods and case studies increased and the share
analysis of historical method fell, although the changes were not as
Citation analysis 0.0 3.3 3.8 significant as in the case of experiment and evaluation.
Other bibliometric method 0.7 0.9 1.8
Experiment 3.5 1.6 9.7
Other empirical method 1.4 4.5 0.3 Methods of data collection. Table 15 gives the breakdowns
Conceptual research strategy 28.9 23.4 13.9 of data collection methods in 1965–2005. On account of the
Mathematical or logical 3.5 2.7 2.6 new class, IR experiment, in the data-collection methods for
System/software 9.2 14.5 6.7 2005, the following analysis entails some limitations of
analysis/design
Literature review 4.9 2.7 1.8
comparability between the years. Questionnaire or inter-
Other 4.9 0.0 0.0 view(s) was among the most frequently used data-collection
Total 99.9 99.3 100.0 methods through the years, with a steady share of 17%. In
1965 and 1985, questionnaire or interview(s) accounted for
the most popular data-collection methods, but IR experiment
overtook this group in the 2005 data. In 2005, the three most
popularity of observing individual-level behavior has grown frequently used methods of data collection were, in decreas-
considerably over the years. The organizational level was ing order, IR experiment, questionnaire or interview(s), and
the most popular through 1965 and 1985 but was over- combinations of several methods. All three were roughly
taken by the individual level in 2005. Although individual equally frequent.
and organizational levels of observation have been The classes other data-collection method and historical
popular through the years, multilevel analyses were rare. source analysis lost popularity from 1985 to 2005. The
Their share increased from 1965 to 1985, after which it fell decrease in other data-collection method may be due in part
slightly. to the new category IR experiment, which may have
obtained its share from this class. Combining several data-
Research strategies. The primary trend has been that of collection methods in a single study increased considerably
increase in the use of empirical research strategies, which in popularity after 1985. Rarely used methods of data col-
has displaced conceptual strategy (see Table 14). The most lection through the years included observation, thinking
noteworthy shift occurred in the period 1985–2005, when aloud, content analysis, citation analysis, and use of data
the proportion of empirical research rose from 56% to 75% collected earlier.
and that of conceptual strategy decreased from 23.4% to
13.9%. Also, systems and software analysis has decreased Application of strategies for topics. Table 16 analyzes the
considerably, after a peak in 1985. application of strategies to topics. In the topic areas
Conceptual research strategy (28.9% to 23.4% to 13.9%) information-seeking and library and information-service
was the most popular nonempirical strategy through the activities, the survey was over the years, almost as a rule,
years. Among empirical strategies, survey has been increas- the most popular research strategy, although in the former
ingly commonplace (20% to 26%). However, a clear trend of area the trend was of decline and in the latter of ascent.

10 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014

DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 16. Three most popular research strategies for LIS topics in 1965, 1985, and 2005 (%; dash indicates n < 10).

1965 (n = 142) 1985 (n = 449) 2005 (n = 626)

LIS topic Pop. Strategy Percentage Strategy Percentage Strategy Percentage

L&I service activities I Survey 36 Conceptual 28 Survey 46

II System/SW 14 Survey 25 Conceptual 16
III Other empirical 11 Historical 13 Case or action 11
IS&R I Conceptual 50 System/SW 31 Evaluation or experiment 63
II Eval./system 11 Conceptual 29 System/SW 14
III – Evaluation 12 Survey 9
Information seeking I Survey 73 Survey 67 Survey 47
II – Conceptual 11 Conceptual 18
III – System/SW 11 Qualitative 17
Scientific and professional I Conceptual 43 Citation anal. 39 Citation anal. 24
communication II Historical 29 Conceptual 21 Survey 23
III – Survey 15 Mathematical 17

Note. I, most popular strategy; II, second most popular strategy; III, third most popular strategy; system/SW, system/software analysis.

TABLE 17. Three most popular viewpoints on information dissemination in LIS topics in 1965, 1985, and 2005.

1965 1985 2005

LIS topic Pop. Viewpoint Percentage Viewpoint Percentage Viewpoint Percentage

L&I service activities I Int. org. 62 Int. org. 70 Int. org. 53

II NA 11 Many 9 Many 22
III Int. med. 8 Int. med. 6 End user 13
IS&R I Int. med. 28 Producer 26 Dev. 38
II NA 25 Int. org. 17 End user 22
III End user/dev. 13 Dev. 17 Many 19
Information seeking I End user 64 End user 41 End user 39
II Int. org. 27 Int. org. 26 End org. 27
III Many 9 Dev. 11 Many 18
Scientific and professional I Int. med./NA 29 NA 33 NA 40
communication II Many/prod./user 14 Many 27 Many 21
III – Producer 12 Producer 20

Note. I, most popular; II, second most popular; III, third most popular viewpoint; many, view of several interconnected phases; producer, information
producer’s viewpoint; int. med., intermediary’s viewpoint; int. org., intermediary organization’s viewpoint; dev., process/service developer’s viewpoint; NA,
no viewpoint.

Conceptual strategies were also somewhat popular in these
areas, both in 1985 and in 2005.
Within information storage and retrieval, experiment and
evaluation have displaced the system-construction and con-
ceptual research strategies. In 1965 and 1985, the most fre-
quently used strategies were system/software construction
and conceptual research strategies. In the 2005 data, evalu-
ation and experiment accounted for more than half of the
strategies in the research area.
In the studies of scientific communication, the use of
strategies varied. The emphasis on citation analysis, concep-
tual strategies, and survey seems well founded, in view
of the types of questions posed within the studies of scien-
tific communication. For 2005, there seems to be one domi-
nant research strategy in three of the four most popular
research areas: the survey in LIS services, evaluation or
experiment in information retrieval, and the survey in infor-
mation seeking.
Viewpoint on the dissemination process in LIS
topics. Table 17 presents the breakdown of viewpoints on
the dissemination process in LIS topics. In the research area
library and information-service activities, a few trends can
be observed. Whereas the proportions of intermediary orga-
nization’s and intermediary’s viewpoints have decreased,
the end user’s and the combinations of several intercon-
nected viewpoints have increased. Despite these changes,
the emphasis was still clearly on intermediary organization’s
viewpoint in 2005.
Considerable shifts in viewpoints appear within informa-
tion storage and retrieval across the years examined. In
1965, research was conducted most often from the interme-
diary viewpoint. Studies without a specific viewpoint were
also popular at that time. Twenty years later, the three most
popular viewpoints were producer’s, intermediary organiza-
tion’s, and developer’s. In 2005, research was performed
mostly from the developer’s viewpoint. In addition to

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014 11

DOI: 10.1002/asi
developer’s viewpoint, the end user’s and the combined
viewpoints saw an ascending trend for 1985–2005.
Information seeking was the only research area wherein
the end user’s viewpoint was primary, although it was
decreasing in popularity (64% to 41% to 39%). Intermediary
organization’s viewpoint was popular in 1965 and 1985,
after which it was displaced by end user organization’s
viewpoint. In addition to end user organization’s viewpoint,
the proportion of applying several interconnected view-
points increased in the time from 1985 to 2005.
In the studies of scientific communication, the viewpoint
on the information-dissemination process was irrelevant for
the most part and became ever more so (29% to 33% to
40%). Otherwise, frequent viewpoints included combina-
tions of several interconnected and producer’s viewpoints.
Discussion
The proportion and absolute number of research articles
published in the core journals examined in the present
study increased significantly during the years. This sup-
ports the findings (see, e.g., Larivière et al., 2012) of expo-
nential growth in LIS research during the last decades of
the 20th century. It is also possible that the acceptance
requirements set by LIS journals have tightened. This may
be another explanation for the growth in the proportion of
research articles.
Examining the data for 2005, we found that the largest
research areas in LIS were information storage and retrieval
(30%), scientific communication (24.3%), library and
information-service activities (17.0%), and information
seeking (12.3%). The viewpoints on information dissemina-
tion differed between these areas: in IS&R, the developer’s
(38%) and end user’s (22%) viewpoints dominated, whereas
in scientific communication, no viewpoint (40%) domi-
nated. In L&I service activities, the intermediary organiza-
tion’s viewpoint was employed in more than half of the
articles. In information seeking, the end users’ (39%) and
their organizations’ (27%) viewpoints were the most
popular. Also, research strategies differed between the main
areas: IS&R emphasized evaluation and experiments (63%),
whereas scientific communication employed citation analy-
sis (24%) and surveys (23%) most often. In research on L&I
service activities and on information seeking, the survey
strategy was used in almost half of the articles (46–47%).
The large share of scientific communication in the research
was due mostly to the inclusion of the journal Scientomet-
rics in the year 2005 data set.
The main finding from the article samples for the years
1965, 1985, and 2005 is the similarity of the distributions in
the first two data sets, after which there appear remarkable
changes in all aspects of research. This means that in 1965–
1985 there were only moderate changes in the topics,
methods, and approaches in LIS research, but after 1985
more radical changes took place in the characteristics of the
research observed. We first briefly discuss the changes and
then propose explanations for them.
12 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
The largest research areas in LIS remained roughly the
same over the years studied. The share of LIS service activi-
ties diminished, whereas the share of information retrieval,
information seeking, and scientific communication grew,
particularly after 1985. Studies of methodology and para-
digms in LIS almost vanished after 1965. These changes
reflect changes in the sociocultural conditions of the field.
The major changes have been the digitalization of informa-
tion; the invention of microcomputers; and the development
of databases, search tools, and the internet, including the
web. This has broadened the horizon of LIS from the ser-
vices and search tools of a specific institution to more
general questions of information access with the aid of infor-
mation retrieval, in particular. This finding supports and
augments Saracevic’s (1999) notion of LIS as a technologi-
cally driven discipline.
These changes are reflected in other aspects of research
too. Intermediaries’ and their organizations’ viewpoints
have given way to end users’ and their organizations’ view-
points. Also the developers’ angle on the information
process has strengthened. All of this is related to the increase
in end-user searching and tools designed for this purpose.
The role of the empirical research strategy has strengthened,
whereas the conceptual strategy weakened from 1985
onward, in particular. This is due mainly to the growth in
evaluation and experimental strategies. Also, surveys gained
popularity in the last 2 decades of the time span considered.
Consequently, among the data-collection methods, the IR
experiment was the main technique in 2005. In 2005, for
three of the four main subfields of LIS, there was a single
dominant research strategy: the survey in L&I services,
evaluation or experiment in information retrieval, and the
survey in information seeking.
Information seeking was the only research area in which
qualitative methods and qualitative types of analyses were
fairly frequently used. Taking into account this research
area’s interdisciplinary relationship to the social sciences,
one should not find this surprising. There has been discus-
sion of qualitative methods within information seeking since
the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Wilson, 2000). In other areas of
LIS, the use of qualitative methods was rare.
Our findings on research methodology are in line with
the findings of Hider and Pymm (2008). The proportion
of empirical studies in their data sample for 2005 was 68%.
In the present study, the corresponding proportion was
75%. The findings on research strategies were also quite
similar between the two studies. According to both studies,
the most frequently employed research strategies in 2005
were the survey and experimentation in combination with
evaluation.
However, some differences appear between the studies in
the distributions of data-collection methods. In the present
study, the most popular data-collection methods were
the IR experiment and the questionnaire and/or interview.
According to Hider and Pymm, the data-collection
methods employed most often in 2005 were questionnaire
or interview and data collected earlier. One plausible
explanation for the differences may be the differences
in the classification systems. Compared with Hider and
Pymm’s work, the present study has a new class, IR
experiment.
The relative sizes of the main fields of LIS were the same,
with IS&R the largest area of study and L&I service activi-
ties the second largest. However, the share of L&I service
activities decreased significantly from 1985 to 2005. At the
same time, the proportions of information seeking and sci-
entific communication increased considerably.
One possible explanation for the changes on the research
front over 1985–2005 may be the social and cognitive insti-
tutionalization of LIS. It seems that research areas and the
viewpoints and methods within them have crystallized. The
decreasing share of research on LIS activities may be a
result of this research area’s difficulties in establishing itself
in academic institutions (see Åström, 2006). Library-
oriented studies may have also had increasing problems with
getting published in core international journals.
The findings on the largest research areas in LIS support
earlier studies. Milojević and colleagues (2011) listed
library science, scientometrics, and information science as
the main fields within LIS. They also saw information-
seeking behavior as a growing area of research in the field.
Likewise, Åström (2007) emphasized the increasing role of
information-seeking research in 1990–2004.
The popularity of the four main subfields of LIS
increased after 1985 especially. Their share was about 70%
in 1965 and 1985, but in 2005 it was about 80%. This
implies that research in the field has focused on these major
areas, leaving less attention for other topics. From a broader
perspective, this can be seen in the increasing one-sidedness
of the research field. On the other hand, investing interest in
a few research areas increases the many-sidedness of the
research within these subfields. The deepening division of
labor within the various subfields increases specialization
within them.
Interesting changes also appear among the subfields. The
growth of IS&R is worthy of note, as is the relative decline
in classification and indexing. The development of online
and web IR has required concentration on end users’
retrieval problems instead of classification and indexing.
The rise of interactive information retrieval to the position of
the most commonly studied topic within LIS indicates an
increase in the user-centered problem settings and in the
development of search tools.
Our findings portray LIS as a discipline with increasing
paradigmatic establishment through the years. Discussions
about the nature of, and methodologies used in, the
research field have given way to mostly empirical analyses.
Research is focused on four major subfields, of which
information retrieval is clearly the most popular. In three of
the four subfields, one main research strategy has become
established. The shifts in topics reflect the changes in the
orientation of the research. End users’, end user organiza-
tions’, and developers’ perspectives have replaced interme-
diaries’ and intermediary organizations’ perspective in the
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014
research. This likely reflects technological changes favor-
ing end user computing and search, along with intellectual
changes that emphasize the cognitive viewpoint in
research.
The present study supports earlier empirical findings and
arguments regarding the cognitive and user-centric turns in
LIS. In particular, the changes in the viewpoints of LIS from
1985 to 2005 indicate a shift from system-oriented toward
user-oriented research. This supports earlier findings (e.g.,
González-Alcaide et al., 2008; Zhao & Strotmann, 2008).
The emphasis of the research has moved from systems and
services to users.
The present study may also support the criticism of meth-
odological individualism in LIS. Research at organizational
and societal levels was found to be rare, as was multilevel
research and the use of qualitative research methods. As
Järvelin and Vakkari (1993) have noted, this may be due to
the choice of research problems, which is reflected in
choices of methods. From Hjørland’s (2002) sociocognitive
viewpoint, it would be fruitful to complement cognitive and
user-centered research with investigation of individual
knowledge from a historical, cultural, and social perspec-
tive. This could also lead to more comprehensive use of both
quantitative and qualitative methods.
Limitations
As noted previously, the low reliability values for some of
the variables indicate limitations in the reliability of the
research results. The variable for perspective on the
information-dissemination process had especially low reli-
ability. However, our findings on viewpoints in LIS are in
line with those of earlier studies (e.g., González-Alcaide
et al., 2008; Zhao & Strotmann, 2008). The focus of the
research has shifted from systems and library institutions to
the users and systems developed for them.
Limiting the data to journals is another factor creating
some reservations with regard to the generalizability of the
research results. Humanist-oriented research areas tend to
favor monographs as a communicative genre (Sugimoto,
2011). However, it is common for humanistic researchers to
report their findings in journals as well. Noteworthy also is
that studies of information retrieval are often published in
conference proceedings, although in the case of humanistic
studies it is not uncommon for researchers to publish in both
proceedings and journals. It is also noteworthy that com-
puter scientists are major contributors to conference pro-
ceedings on information retrieval. Therefore, for delimiting
the borders for LIS in the present study well, it was justifi-
able to limit the investigation to journals.
Concentration on journals only in English is also some-
what problematic, because it may lead to a predominantly
Anglo-American view of LIS (cf. Åström, 2006). How-
ever, exclusion of journals in other languages is
justifiable, given that the journals cited most often are in
English.
13
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 As our analysis demonstrates, it is also evident that one
highly productive journal may alter research results signifi-
cantly, as in the case of Åström (2006). For example, the
inclusion of the journal Scientometrics increased the propor-
tion of studies of scientific communication in the present
study considerably. On the other hand, this is not necessarily
problematic, because these highly productive journals can
be seen as representing part of the core of LIS.
Conclusions
This study is descriptive in nature. Instead of arguing
what topics should be studied and by which methods, our
primary goal was to conduct empirical analysis of LIS and
its development. In our analysis of research articles pub-
lished in core LIS journals in 2005, we found that the largest
areas of LIS research in that year were information storage
and retrieval, scientific communication, library and
information-service activities, and information seeking, in
decreasing order of prevalence. Viewpoints on information
dissemination differed between these areas: In IS&R, the
developer’s and end user’s viewpoints dominated, whereas
no viewpoint dominated in scientific communication. In
L&I service activities, the intermediary organization’s view-
point was employed in more than half of the articles. In
information seeking, the end user and end-user organiza-
tion’s viewpoints were the most popular. Research strategies
also differed across the main areas: IS&R emphasized evalu-
ation and experiments, whereas scientific communication
employed citation analysis and surveys. In research into L&I
service activities and information seeking, the survey strat-
egy was used in almost half of the articles.
In addition, by combining the 2005 data set with two
earlier sets covering the years 1965 and 1985, we analyzed
the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005. The same
research areas, IS&R, scientific communication, L&I
service activities, and information seeking, constituted the
quantitative core of LIS in the years 1965–2005 as well.
IS&R has been the most popular research area through the
years. Although the proportion of research into L&I service
activities decreased after its peak in 1985, the popularity of
information seeking and of scientific communication
increased considerably during the same time. The propor-
tion of empirical research strategies was high (49% to 75%),
with the survey method (22% to 26%) emerging as the single
most important method. A conceptual research strategy
(mainly verbal argument) was employed in 14% to 29% of
the articles, and system analysis, description, and design in
7% to 15%. The most noteworthy changes from 1965 to
2005 involve decreasing interest in LIS activities and the
growth of research into information seeking and scientific
communication. Significant changes of focus occurred
within the main research areas.
Overall, we observe major changes in LIS from 1965 to
2005, featuring (a) a change of focus from L&I organiza-
tions to end users and system development for the latter and
(b) increased application of empirical research strategies,
14 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
with (c) increased attention to evaluation and experiments.
Our data do not give an account of the most recent changes
in LIS. It would be valuable to collect fresh data, which
would reflect the current situation in the field.
References
Åström, F. (2002). Visualizing library and information science concept
spaces through keyword and citation based maps and clusters. In
Emerging Frameworks and Methods: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information
Science (CoLIS4) (pp. 185–197). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries
Unlimited.
Åström, F. (2006). The Social and Intellectual Development of Library
and Information Science. Umeå, Sweden: Department of Sociology.
Dissertation.
Åström, 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),
47–957.
Åström, F. (2010). The visibility of information science and library science
research in the bibliometric mapping of the LIS field. Library Quarterly,
80(2), 143–159.
Atkins, S.E. (1988). Subject trends in library and information science
research, 1975–1984. Library Trends, 36(4), 633–658.
Belkin, N.J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science.
Journal of Information Science, 16(1), 11–15.
Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the library periodical literature: Content and
authorship. College & Research Libraries, 52(1), 38–53.
Cronin, B., & Meho, L.I. (2008). The shifting balance of intellectual trade
in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 59(4), 551–564.
Davarpanah, M.R., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of inter-
national LIS journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics,
77(1), 21–39.
Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 21, 3–33.
Dogan, M., & Rokkan, S. (1969). Quantitative ecological analysis in the
social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Feehan, P.E., Gragg, W.L. II, Havener, W.M., & Kester, D.D. (1987).
Library and information science research: An analysis of the 1984
journal literature. Library & Information Science Research, 9, 173–185.
Frohmann, B. (1992). The power of images: A discourse analysis of the
cognitive viewpoint. Journal of Documentation, 48(4), 365–386.
González-Alcaide, G., Castelló-Cogollos, L., Navarro-Molina, C.,
Aleixandre-Benavent, R., and Valderrama-Zurián, J.C. (2008). Library
and information science research areas: Analysis of journal articles in
LISA. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 59(1), 150–154.
Hayes, A.F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard
reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Mea-
sures, 1, 77–89. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/courses/2007fall/
jomc/801/001/HayesAndKrippendorff.pdf
Hider, P., & Pymm, B. (2008). Empirical research methods reported in
high-profile LIS journal literature. Library & Information Science
Research, 30, 108–114.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in
information science. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 53(4), 257–270.
Hjørland, B. (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2),
217–237.
Huang, M.H., & Chang, Y.W. (2012). A comparative study of interdisci-
plinary changes between information science and library science. Scien-
tometrics, 91(3), 789–803.
Ingwersen, P. (1992). Information and information science in context. Libri,
42(2), 99–135.
Järvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (1990). Content analysis of research articles in Appendix A. List of journals
library and information science. Library & Information Science
Research, 12, 395–421. Journal name 1965 1985 2005
Järvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (1993). The evolution of library and information
science 1965–85: A content analysis of journal articles. Information ACM Transactions on Information Systems ×
Processing & Management, 29(1), 129–144. Aslib Proceedings × × ×
Julien, H., Pecoskie, J., & Reed, K. (2011). Trends in information behavior Bibliotek Forschung und Praxis ×
research, 1999–2008: A content analysis. Library & Information Science Biblos × ×
Research, 33, 19–24. College and Research Libraries × × ×
Kim, S.-J., & Jeong, D.Y. (2006). An analysis of the development and use Drexel Library Quarterly × ×
of theory in library and information science research articles. Library & The Electronic Library ×
Information Science Research, 28, 548–562. The Indexer × × ×
Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L., & Crumley, E. (2004). A content analysis of Informatik × ×
librarianship research. Journal of Information Science, 30(3), 227–239. Information Processing and Management × × ×
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its method- (Information Storage and Retrieval)
ology. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Information Research ×
Kumpulainen, S. (1991). Library and information science research 1975: Information Retrieval ×
Content analysis of journal articles. Libri, 41(1), 59–76. Information Services & Use (1984) × ×
Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R., & Cronin, B. (2012). A bibliometric chroni- Information Technology and Libraries (1983) × ×
cling of library and information science’s first hundred years. Journal of (Journal of Library Automation)
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(5), International Cataloguing ×
997–1016. International Classification ×
Milojević, S., Sugimoto, C.R., Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2011). The cognitive International Forum on Information and ×
structure of library and information science: Analysis of article title Documentation
words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Social Science Information Studies (International × ×
Technology, 62(10), 1933–1953. Journal of Information Management)
Nolin, J. (2007). What’s in a turn? Information Research, 12(4). Retrieved International Information & Library Review × ×
from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis11.html Journal of the American Society for Information × × ×
Nolin, J., & Åström, F. (2010). Turning weakness into strength: Strategies Science
for future LIS. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 7–27. Journal of Documentation × ×
Nour, M.M. (1985). A quantitative analysis of the research articles Journal of Education for Librarianship ×
published in core library journals of 1980. Library and Information Journal of Information Science (The Information × ×
Science Research, 7, 261–273. Scientist)
Peritz, B.C. (1980). The methods of library science research: Some results Journal of Librarianship (now Journal of × ×
from a bibliometric survey. Library Research, 2(3), 251–268. Librarianship and Information Science)
Pettigrew, K.E., & McKechnie, L. (2001). The use of theory in information Journal of Library Administration ×
science research. Journal of the American Society for Information Journal of Library History (1984) (now Libraries × ×
Science and Technology, 52(1), 62–73. and Culture)
Powell, R. (1985). Basic research methods for librarians. Norwood, NJ: Library and Information Science Research × ×
Greenwood Publishing Group. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical ×
Rochester, M.K., & Vakkari, P. (2003). International library and informa- Services
tion science research: A comparison of national trends. In IFLA Library History (1982–1984, Vol. 6) × ×
Professional Reports, 82, 1–40. Library Quarterly × × ×
Saracevic, T. (1999). Information science. Journal of the American Society Library Resources and Technical Services × × ×
for Information Science, 50(12), 1051–1063. Library Science with a Slant to Documentation and ×
Sugimoto, C. (2011). Looking across communicative genres: A call for Information Studies
inclusive indicators of interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 86, 449–461. Library Trends × × ×
Sugimoto, C.R., & McCain, K.W. (2010). Visualizing changes over time: Libri × × ×
A history of information retrieval through the lens of descriptor tri- Nachrichten für Dokumentation × ×
occurrence mapping. Journal of Information Science, 36(4), 481–493. New Review of Information Networking ×
Sugimoto, C.R., Li, D., Russell, T.G., Finlay, S.C., & Ding, Y. (2011). The Online ×
shifting sands of disciplinary development: Analyzing North American Online Information Review × ×
library and information science dissertations using latent Dirichlet Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America × ×
allocation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Program × ×
Technology, 62(1), 185–204. Reference Quarterly × × ×
Vakkari, P. (1994). Library and information science: Its content and scope. Scientific and Technical Information Processing
In I.P. Godden (Ed.). Advances in librarianship, Vol. 18 (pp. 1–55). San Special Libraries (1984) ×
Diego, CA: Academic Press. Scientometrics ×
White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author Unesco Journal of Information Science, × ×
co-citaiton analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the Librarianship and Archives Administration
American Society for Information Science, 49, 327–355. (1983)
Wilson, T.D. (2000). Recent trends in user studies: Action research and Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie ×
qualitative methods. Information Research, 5(3). Retrieved from http://
Note. The articles were gathered from the following international LIS
informationr.net/ir/5-3/paper76.html
journals. The columns 1965, 1985, and 2005 indicate the years for which
Zhao, D.Z., & Strotmann, A. (2008). Information science during the first
data on the journal content was gathered.
decade of the web: An enriched author co-citation analysis. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6),
916–937.

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014 15

DOI: 10.1002/asi
Appendix B. The classification system
Topic 15 end user’s viewpoint
Library and information science topic 16 end user organization’s viewpoint
A 010 the professions 17 viewpoint of the developer of the process or a service (prefer the
020 library history alternatives above)
030 publishing (including book history) 18 LIS educator’s viewpoint
100 education in library and inf. science 00 no viewpoint on information dissemination
200 methodology (as the study of research methods) Social level
300 analysis of library and inf. science (both literature based empirical and S 1 individual
theoretical) 2 organizational
400 Research on library and information service activities 3 societal
410 circulation or interlibrary loan activities 4 multilevel
420 collections study 0 not applicable
430 information or reference service Method
440 user education including information literacy Research strategy
450 library buildings and facilities M 10 empirical research strategy
460 administration or planning 11 historical method
470 automation study, digital libraries study (except when concerned with 12 survey method
some particular activity 41-46) 13 qualitative method
480 other L&I service activities 14 evaluation and/or experimental method
490 several interconnected activities 15 case or action research method
500 Research in information storage and retrieval 16 content or protocol analysis
510 metadata/cataloguing study 17 citation analysis
520 study on classification and indexing (intellectual, automatic, NLP, 18 other bibliometric method
stemming, lemmatization, thesauri/ontologies in indexing) 21 secondary analysis
530 Study on search information retrieval (clustering, information filtering, 22 other empirical method
query formulation, relevance feedback, retrieval models, search 30 Conceptual research strategy
process, question answering: 31 verbal argumentation, criticism
531 text retrieval systems in test collections 32 concept analysis
532 other media (systems) in test collections 40 mathematical or locigal method
533 web retrieval (systems) 50 system and software analysis and design
540 digital information resources 60 literature review
550 interactive (user-oriented) IR (test collections/web/log analysis) 80 bibliographic method
560 other study of information storage and retrieval 90 other method
600 Research on information seeking 00 not applicable, no method
610 information dissemination study
Data collection method
620 the use or users of channels or sources of information (focus on
channels or sources; persons can be units of observation, but focus C 10 questionnaire, interview
is on channel preferences or frequency of their use) 20 observation
630 the use of L&I services (no other channels considered) 30 thinking aloud
640 Study on information seeking behavior (focus on persons). Information 40 content analysis
seeking process as the point of departure 50 citation analysis
641 task-based information seeking study (tasks or interests as the point of 60 historical source analysis
departure) 70 several methods of collecting
642 other information seeking 80 use of data collected earlier
650 information use study (whether (and how) information has been used) 85 IR experiment
660 information management (IRM), knowledge management 90 other method of collecting
700 Research on scientific and professional communication 00 not applicable
710 scientific or professional publishing Type of analysis
720 citation patterns and structures Q 1 qualitative
730 webometrics 2 quantitative
740 other aspects of scientific or professional communication 3 mixed types
800 other aspects of LIS 0 not applicable (not empirical, not an investigation)
900 other study (other discipline) Type of investigation
I 10 empirical
R
11 descriptive
no research
12 comparative
research
13 explanatory
APPROACHES 20 conceptual
Viewpoint on information dissemination 30 theoretical
P 10 several interconnected phases of dissemination 40 methodological
11 information producer’s (originator’s) viewpoint 50 system description (constructive)
12 information seller’s (marketer’s) viewpoint 90 other type
13 intermediary’s viewpoint 00 not applicable, not a research article
14 intermediary organization’s viewpoint

Note. The class numbers printed in boldface were used in the data collection. The class numbers without boldface were used in the analysis only for data aggregation.

16 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014

DOI: 10.1002/asi
Appendix C. Details of topic distribution: Research topics in research articles in 1965, 1985, and
2005 (%)
Topic Subclass 1965 (n = 142) 1985 (n = 449) 2005 (n = 626)

Professions 4.9 5.6 1.6

Library history 2.8 3.8 4.8
Publishing & book history 5.6 3.1 0.8
Education in LIS 2.1 4.7 0.3
Methodology 7.8 0.9 0.5
Analysis of LIS 5.6 2.4 3.2
L&I service activities 25.4 27.2 19.5
circulation or interlibrary loan 2.8 2.9 0.6
collections 6.3 7.1 1.9
information or reference service 0.7 2.7 1.6
user education 0.7 0.9 1.9
buildings and facilities 0.7 0.2 0
administration or planning 1.4 5.8 2.6
automation 7.8 3.6 7.3
other L&I service activities 3.5 1.1 1.4
several interconnected L&I activities 1.4 2.9 2.1
IS&R 32.4 29.2 34.5
cataloguing 4.2 3.1 2.1
classification and indexing 21.8 5.6 8.1
text-retrieval systems in test collections 4.5
other media (systems) in test collections 0.8
web-based retrieval in test collections 5.3
digital information resources 2.1
interactive IR 8.8
other IS&R research 2.9
information retrieval 4.2 12.7
bibliographic databases or bibliographies 2.1 4.2
nonbibliographic databases 0 3.6
Information seeking 7.8 6 14.1
information dissemination 0 0.7 0.2
use/users of information channels/sources 2.1 1.3 0.8
use of L&I services 2.8 2.2 3.2
task-based information seeking 3.0
other types of information-seeking studies 0.8
information-seeking behavior 1.4 0.7
information use 0 0.9 1
information management 1.4 5.1
Scientific and professional 4.9 7.3 13.4
communication
scientific or professional publications 2.8 2.2 2.6
citation patterns and structures 1.4 3.3 3.4
webometrics 2.7
other aspects of communication 0.7 1.8 4.8
Other LIS topics 1 6.7 7.3
Total 100.3 100 100

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2014 17

DOI: 10.1002/asi