中国科学院文献情报中心机构知识库

Purpose: This study analyzes the current status of institutional cooperation in economics and management (EM) and library and information science (LIS) in China.

Design/methodology/approach: Based on the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) database, we constructed institutional collaboration networks in EM and LIS, and analyzed the collaboration characteristics through social network analysis.

Findings: In the development and evolution of the collaboration network of institutions in humanities and social sciences, EM is always at the center. It has extensive cooperation relationships with other fields. The position of LIS has also become centralized, and its interdisciplinary cooperation has increased. For both EM and LIS, we observed “small-world” and “scale-free” networks, indicating full communication and mature development in both disciplines. Based on a comparison of two institutions in the two fields, we confirmed the comprehensive development in EM and the extensive information exchange in LIS.

Research limitations: We collected data only from humanities and social sciences, but did not consider the connection between EM and natural sciences, or between LIS and natural sciences. In addition, the paper lacks analysis of institutional collaboration at the micro level.

Practical implications: The paper provides insights into the institutional cooperation characteristics in EM and LIS in China.

Originality/value: The paper offers a new perspective on the characteristics of institutional collaboration in China.

Purpose: This study analyzes the current status of institutional cooperation in economics and management (EM) and library and information science (LIS) in China.

Design/methodology/approach: Based on the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) database, we constructed institutional collaboration networks in EM and LIS, and analyzed the collaboration characteristics through social network analysis.

Findings: In the development and evolution of the collaboration network of institutions in humanities and social sciences, EM is always at the center. It has extensive cooperation relationships with other fields. The position of LIS has also become centralized, and its interdisciplinary cooperation has increased. For both EM and LIS, we observed “small-world” and “scale-free” networks, indicating full communication and mature development in both disciplines. Based on a comparison of two institutions in the two fields, we confirmed the comprehensive development in EM and the extensive information exchange in LIS.

Research limitations: We collected data only from humanities and social sciences, but did not consider the connection between EM and natural sciences, or between LIS and natural sciences. In addition, the paper lacks analysis of institutional collaboration at the micro level.

Practical implications: The paper provides insights into the institutional cooperation characteristics in EM and LIS in China.

Originality/value: The paper offers a new perspective on the characteristics of institutional collaboration in China.