From: http://asis.org/asist2013/AM2013CFP.pdf 76th Annual Meeting of ASIST November 1-6, 2013, Centre Sheraton, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Complete Call for proposals: http://asis.org/asist2013/AM2013CFP.pdf Beyond the Cloud: Rethinking Information Boundaries The ASIST Annual Meeting is the main venue for disseminating research on advances in information science, information technology and related topics. This year’s conference theme offers an opportunity to reflect on all the changes that impact on human information interaction and their implications for information science and technology. Submissions are solicited for, but not limited to, the five tracks below. Tracks Track 1: Human Information Interaction Information Retrieval; Information Behavior; Human Computer Interaction; Usability; E-Science Distributed Collaboration; Virtual Organizations; User Modeling; Mobile Technologies. Track 2: Information Organization and Representation Meta data; Taxonomies; Information Visualization; Information Architecture; Digital Libraries; Indexing and Abstracting; Classification; Social Tagging; Semantic Web and Ontology; Social Media. Track 3: Information Use Analysis Information Seeking and User Studies; Strategic, Security Competitive Intelligence; Information Knowledge Management; Comparative Analysis of Information Practices; Information Metrics (Bibliometrics/Informatrics/Webometrics). Track 4: Information Preservation Access Digital Curation; Big Data; E-book; Information Quality; Copyright, Intellectual Properties and Related Issues; Information Literacy. Track 5: Information Environments Socio-Cultural Aspects Organizational Contextual Issues; Security Privacy; Economics of Information; Social Informatics; Information Policy; Foundation of Information Science; Digital Humanities; Web 3.0 and related technologies; Cloud Computing. Important Dates: Submissions for Papers, Panels, Workshops Tutorials: April 15th, 2013 Submissions for Posters, Demos Videos: July 1st. 2013 Types of Submissions 1) Papers Submission site: http://www.softconf.com/asis/AM_13_Contributed_Papers/ 2) Panels: http://www.softconf.com/asis/AM_13_Panels_and_Technical_Sessions/ 3) Interactive Showcase a) Posters b) Demos c) Videos Submission site: http://www.softconf.com/asis/AM-13-Posters/ 4) Workshops and Tutorials Submission site: http://www.softconf.com/asis/AM_13_Tutorials_and_Workshops/ For more information, please contact: Conference Chairs: France Bouthillier, McGill University (france.bouthillier@mcgill.ca) Boryung Ju, Louisiana State University (bju1@lsu.edu) Aril 15, 2013
Chang Yu-Wei Huang, Mu-Hsuan.A Study of the Evolution of Interdisciplinarity in Library and Information Science: Using Three Bibliometric Methods。JASIST。2011 ASIST • Published online 30 September 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.21649 做为一个交叉领域的LIS学科的出现始于情报学（informaiton science)融入图书馆学，是图书馆学对信息技术的影响所做出的反应。JASIST 上最新发表的文章运用文献计量学的方法分析了1978至2007年图书馆学情报学跨学科性的演变。该项研究表明LIS领域跨学科性质正在增加，LIS领域的研究者引用最多的还是本学科的出版物，一半的合作者供职于LIS相关的机构。LIS论文直接引用的文献分布于30个学科，合作者的论文分布于25个领域，两个指标相应的跨学科性分别为0.61和0.82. 该文选取的10种期刊及其论文数分布如下，其中共11,120篇论文中有LIS论文共7,704篇，清楚地揭示出情报学刊物的跨学科性质远远超过纯粹的图书馆学刊物。 TABLE 1. Ten library and information science (LIS) journals used for this study（1978-2007）. 论文数 LIS论文数 College Research Libraries 1,044 1,044 Information Processing Management 1,466 329 JASIST 2,224 828 Journal of Academic Librarianship 1,2631,263 Journal of Documentation 550 255 Journal of Information Science 1,072484 Library and Information Science Research 427 427 Library Quarterly 436 436 Library Resources Technical Services672 672 Scientometrics 1,966 1,966 Total 11,120 7,704
图谋按：图情界关于理论与实践的矛盾讨论经久不息，矛盾中隐藏着若干更为深刻的问题，关系着学科的发展、事业的进步。本文简略摘编图情研究者与从业者的11种隔阂及其消除对策。 编译自：G. Haddow, J.E. Klobas (2004). Communication of research to practice in library and information science: Closing the gap.Library Information Science Research,26, 29–43 (图谋注：Elsevier有全文) 2004年，澳大利亚科廷科技大学（Curtin University of Technology,）护理与助产学院Gaby Haddow和西澳大利亚大学Jane E. Klobas在图书馆学与情报学研究（Library Information Science Research）上发表《图书馆学与情报学的研究到实践交流：消除隔阂》（Communication of research to practice in library and information science: Closing the gap）。 图书馆学与情报学（LIS）广泛关注的是研究与实践二者间联系，尤其是研究到实践的沟通是有缺陷的。作者通过文献调研与分析，考察研究与实践二者间隔阂的本质，减少隔阂的策略，并且研究这些策略的成效。确定有11种隔阂：知识、文化、动机、相关、直接、出版、阅读、术语、活动、教育和时间。 知识隔阂，如果研究者与从业者之间的交流更有效将是更明智的。（Both researchers and practitioners would be more informed if there were more effective communication between them.） 文化隔阂，研究者与从业者不能相互理解，尊重不同类型的工作，从不同的过程中获取新知识，并且交流仅限于同行之间。（Researchers and practitioners fail to understand each other, respect different types of work,gain new knowledge from different processes, and ommunicate only within their own peer group.） 动机隔阂，从业者对研究兴趣了了。 （Practitioners are not interested in research.） 相关隔阂，研究者与从业者重视对不同类型问题的研究。（Researchers and practitioners value investigation of different types of problem.） 直接隔阂，从业人员的问题比学术研究问题更需要快速解决。（Practitioners’ problems need solutions more quickly than academic research problems.） 出版隔阂，该领域的出版物相对较少，从业者写的更少。（There is relatively little research publication in the field, and little of it is written by practitioners.） 阅读隔阂，研究者与从业者不看对方写的文献。（Researchers and practitioners do not read each others’ literature.） 术语隔阂，互相使用彼此不懂的术语，研究者尤其如此。（Each group uses terminology that is not understood by the other. This is particularly true of researchers.） 活动隔阂，很少有从业者进行研究（Few practitioners conduct research.） 教育隔阂，从业者没有进行研究的知识和技能。（Practitioners do not have the knowledge and skill to conduct research.） 时间隔阂，从业者没时间阅读和研究。（Practitioners do not have time to read or do research.） 文末结论指出：尽管关于研究与实践隔阂有如上所述种种，该领域关于从业者找到使得或促进研究到实践交流有效的有关研究仍缺乏强有力的科学依据。随着如卫生科学等其他行业关注类似的问题，该领域最近的专业讨论及研究项目数量说明这个话题重新被关注，这为重新思考以上讨论中关心的问题提供了一个机会。为图书馆学与情报学改善与其它学科研究交流，评价这些及其它策略的应用效果提供动力。也许最重要的是，他强调需要进行研究，更深层次研究研究与实践之间的交流，并且测试改进建议策略的有效性。
这是我为情报学研究生讲授《信息管理研究方法》第一章时，要求学生必读的一篇文献。12月5号应邀在北大"情报学与信息管理论坛"上发言时，提到了这篇文章。文章从认识论的角度入手，探讨了LIS中经验主义、理性主义与实证主义的发展历程。 Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance and influence of the epistemologies: “empiricism”, “rationalism” and “positivism” in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach – First, outlines the historical development of these epistemologies, by discussing and identifying basic characteristics in them and by introducing the criticism that has been raised against these views. Second, their importance for and influence in LIS have been examined. Findings – The findings of this paper are that it is not a trivial matter to define those epistemologies and to characterise their influence. Many different interpretations exist and there is no consensus regarding current influence of positivism in LIS. Arguments are put forward that empiricism and positivism are still dominant within LIS and specific examples of the influence on positivism in LIS are provided. A specific analysis is made of the empiricist view of information seeking and it is shown that empiricism may be regarded as a normative theory of information seeking and knowledge organisation. Originality/value – The paper discusses basic theoretical issues that are important for the further development of LIS as a scholarly field. Birger Hjrland . Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science. Journal of Documentation Vol. 61 No. 1, 2005 pp. 130-155
图谋按：《Science》2009年8月14日刊登了一篇评论《策略性阅读、本体与科学出版的未来》。作者为伊利诺伊大学厄巴纳香槟分校图情（LIS）研究生院Allen H. Renear和Carole L. Palmer。特此摘译该文摘要及2019年科学家们将怎样使用文献？部分，供参考。感谢caveman (Jason Zou) 先生提供原文！ 译自：Allen H. Renear, et al. Strategic Reading, Ontologies, and the Future of Scientific Publishing.Science 325,828(2009).DOI:10.1126/Science.1157784 (作者信息：Allen H. Renear and Carole L. Palmer，Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship,Graduate School of Library and Information Science,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,CHampaign,IL 61820,USA) 题名：策略性阅读、本体与科学出版的未来 摘要：科学出版革命自20世纪80年代起预示即将发生。科学家们讲究策略性阅读，同时对许多篇论文进行搜索，筛选，浏览，链接，注释和分析内容片段。观察表明网络环境下的策略性阅读最近有所增加，不久将进一步集中为两种流行的趋势：一是资源数字标引，检索和导航的广泛使用；二是多学科内在本体互操作的出现。利用本体优势，阅读工具开发加速与增强，阅读实践将变得更加快速和丰富，改变了科学家使用文献的方法并且重塑了科学出版的演变。 摘要原文： The revolution in scientific publishing that has been promised since the 1980s is about to take place. Scientists have always read strategically, working with many articles simultaneously to search, filter, scan, link, annotate, and analyze fragments of content. An observed recent increase in strategic reading in the online environment will soon be further intensified by two current trends: (i) the widespread use of digital indexing, retrieval, and navigation resources and (ii) the emergence within many scientific disciplines of interoperable ontologies. Accelerated and enhanced by reading tools that take advantage of ontologies, reading practices will become even more rapid and indirect, transforming the ways in which scientists engage the literature and shaping the evolution of scientific publishing. 2019年科学家们将怎样使用文献？ 尽管文本挖掘和自动化处理变得很平常，科学家们仍旧阅读叙事散文。然而，这种阅读实践有延伸阅读文献和本体意识工具的支持会越来越策略。作为出版工作流程的一部分，针对丰富的本体，科学术语将按常规编入索引。更重要的是，正式的说法，也许在专门的结构化摘要，将提供计算获得的因果关系和本体联系的索引和浏览工具。超文本链接将是广泛的，通过共享注释数据库自动生成读者提供的博客评论。同时，将出现更多工具增强搜索、浏览和分析并且利用日益丰富的索引、链接和注释信息。 如上所述，在技术方面没有障碍，而且已经在进行。一如既往，这些变化将是渐进的。现在已广泛运用现有的索引和检索服务的科学家，会遇到新的增强功能，并且采用那些快速增长的文献。新功能的提供有时会作为应用程序接口（比如PubMed的新功能）的一部分，或作为用户可以添加到Web浏览器的共享外部工具。这些发展在找一篇文章来读的行为已经过时与狭义的文本挖掘对象之间形成中间道路，直接反映科学家们日常工作中策略性阅读是非常必要的、有意义的。 原文：How Will Scientists Work with the Literature in 2019? Scientists will still read narrative prose, even as text mining and automated processing become common; however, these reading practices will become increasingly strategic, supported by enhanced literature and ontology-aware tools. Aspart of the publishing workflow, scientific terminology will be indexed routinely against rich ontologies. More importantly, formalized assertions, perhaps maintained in specialized structured abstracts, will provide indexing and browsing tools with computational access to causal and ontological relationships. Hypertext linking will be extensive, generated both automatically and by readers providing commentary on blogs and through shared annotation databases. At the same time, more tools for enhanced searching,scanning, and analyzing will appear and exploit the increasingly rich layer of indexing, linking, and annotation information. There are no technical obstacles to this trajectory, and it is already under way. The changes,as always, will be incremental: Scientists, who today already make extensive use of existing indexing and retrieval services, will encounter a steady stream of new enhancements and adopt those that allow rapid and productive engagement with the literature. The new functionality will sometimes be provided as part of the application interface (new features in PubMed, for instance) or as shared external tools that users can add to their Web browsers. These developments chart a middle course between the already obsolete activity of finding an article to read on the one hand, and the narrower objectives of text mining on the other, responding directly to the entrenched necessity and value of strategic reading in the daily work of todays scientists.
标签: LIS
