Search

PurposeIn this article, the ideas and methods behind the “patent-paper citation” are scrutinised by following the intellectual and technical development of approaches and ideas in early work on patentometrics. The aim is to study how references from patents to papers came to play a crucial role in establishing a link between science and technology.Design/methodology/approachThe study comprises a conceptual history of the “patent paper citation” and its emergence as an important indicator of science and technology interaction. By tracing key references in the field, it analyses the overarching frameworks and ideas, the conceptual “hinterland”, in which the approach of studying patent references emerged.FindingsThe analysis explains how interest in patents – not only as legal and economic artefacts but also as scientific documents – became evident in the 1980s. The focus on patent citations was sparked by a need for relevant and objective indicators and by the greater availability of databases and methods. Yet, the development of patentometrics also relied on earlier research, and established theories, on the relation between science and technology.Originality/valueThis is the first attempt at situating patentometrics in a larger societal and scientific context. The paper offers a reflexive and nuanced analysis of the “patent-paper citation” as a theoretical and historical construct, and it calls for a broader and contextualised understanding of patent references, including their social, legal and rhetorical function.

PurposeThe aims of this paper are to: investigate the citation‐patterns of monograph books in taxonomic botany (looking mainly at publications and publishers, and the age of current literature); and make recommendations for collections management and reference services in libraries that hold botany materials.Design/methodology/approachIn total, 454 citations were collected at random from 47 botanical monographs published in 2009; a Bradford distribution of cited journals was produced; age‐distributions of citations were devised; and other bibliographical characteristics were tabulated.FindingsA small Bradfordian core of highly‐cited journals and important publishers of monograph books were identified; monographs are cited more often than journal articles; older materials are more important than in other sciences; monographs are used by botanists for current awareness purposes; coverage of botanical journals by citation indexes is poor.Research limitations/implicationsThe small size of the sample means that results were indicative. Further studies could: take larger samples; look at citations in journal articles, theses, conference proceeding; look at citations made over several years.Practical implicationsLibrarians should: note the core botanical journals identified here; continue to acquire botanical monographs and to retain older materials; display new botanical monographs prominently and include them in current awareness services.Originality/valueThe bibliometrics of taxonomic botany have previously been little studied; likewise citations from monographs. This paper fills some of the gaps. Some of the bibliometric methods of J. M. Cullars were applied to botanical literature.

PurposeMultiple disciplines such as finance, management and economics have contributed to governance research over time. However, the full intellectual structure of the governance “field” including the exchange of knowledge across disciplines and the large variety of governance topics remains to be uncovered. To appreciate the breadth of corporate governance research, it is necessary to understand the disciplinary sources from which the research stems. This manuscript focuses on the interdisciplinary underpinnings of corporate governance research.Design/methodology/approachThis paper employs bibliometric analysis to trace the evolution of corporate governance using articles included in the ISI Web of Science database between 1990 and 2015. Journals included in these categories encompass a full range of business disciplines and provide evidence of the multi-disciplinary nature of corporate governance. It also uncovers the topics treated by disciplines under the governance umbrella using a machine learning method called latent Dirichtlet allocation (LDA).FindingsCorporate governance research deals with a number of strategy-related topics. Unlike strategy topics that reside in a single discipline, corporate governance crosses disciplinary boundaries and includes contributions from accounting, finance, economics, law and management. Our analysis shows that over 80% of corporate governance articles come from outside the field of management. Our LDA solution indicates that the major topics in governance research include corporate governance theory, control of family firms, executive compensation and audit committees.Originality/valueThe results illustrate that corporate governance is far more interdisciplinary than previously thought. This is an important insight for corporate governance academics and may lead to collaborative research. More importantly, this research illustrates the usefulness of LDA for investigating interdisciplinary fields. This method is easily transferable to other interdisciplinary fields and it provides a powerful alternative to existing bibliometric methods. We suggest a number of topic areas within library and information science where this method may be applied, including collection development, support for interdisciplinary faculty and basic research into emerging interdisciplinary areas.

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to examine the practical potentials of Bradford's law in relation to core‐journal identification.Design/methodology/approachLiterature studies and empirical tests (Bradford analyses).FindingsLiterature studies reveal that the concept of “subject” has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradford's law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of “subject” produce quite different lists of core‐journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views.Practical implicationsBradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradford's law needs to be revised.Originality/valueThe paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field.