Studying the Patterns of users' tagging to knowledge and information science field's articles in the scientific social networks

Saadat, Rasul; Shabani, Ahmad; Asemi, Asefeh; CheshmehSohrabi, Mehrdad; TavakoliZadeh Ravari, Mohammad

doi:10.35050/JIPM010.2022.015

Studying the Patterns of users' tagging to knowledge and information science field's articles in the scientific social networks

Authors

Rasul Saadat

Ahmad Shabani

Asefeh Asemi

Mehrdad CheshmehSohrabi

Mohammad TavakoliZadeh Ravari

10.35050/JIPM010.2022.015

Abstract

This research aims to verify the patterns of users' tagging to the articles of knowledge and information science field in academia.edu. The research method is quantitative and based on text mining and applicable typically. The population includes 6086 bibliographic articles and their abstracts extracted from 159 English journals of knowledge and information science field in Scopus database that are core journals in LISTA as well. In order to gather these data, 194337 articles were searched in academia.edu then every article that tagged was chosen. Examining the relationship between the growth of different types of tags (one-word, two-word, three-word, and four-word and more) and increasing of documents showed a linear correlation between them. Among the different groups of tags, the highest growth rate was related to two-word tags (.609%) and the lowest growth rate was related to four-word tags and more (.143%). The total growth rate of the tags (new and duplicate) was also 5.52 (i.e. 5.52 tags per document). It was also found that two-word tags had the most matching (54.92%) and four-word tags and the least matching (1.76%) with different sections of articles (title, abstract, and authors' keywords). The total tags were matched 7.5% with the title, 76.61% with the abstract, and 15.89% with the authors' keywords. Regarding the reuse of tags, it was revealed that in general, 38.8% of the tags have been reused. On the other hand, two-word tags with 57.59% had the most reuse and four-word tags and more with 7.54% had the least. Another point is that 16% of the tags were reused in the first year and more than 50% of the tags were reused in the first 3 years. Finally, it can be said that the existence of a significant user consensus on certain terms indicates that the new patterns of user tags are at least partially compatible with professional indexing concepts about document content, and by focusing on the most widely used tags and their sustainable distribution, weight formulation and even classification schemes may be achieved. Also, users' activities on social networks can be used to increase the quality of suggestions in collective tagging systems. Another point is that there is a connection between professional indexing and user tagging, and the two are not alien to each other. This connectivity can be the basis for a complementary subject access system that enriches professional indexing.

Keywords

Social tagging

Indexing

knowledge organization

folksonomy

scientific social networks

Knowledge and Information Science

academia.edu

پاول، رونالد. 1991. روش‌های اساسی پژوهش برای کتابداران. ترجمة نجلا حریری. 1385. تهران: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات.

توکلی‌زاده راوری، محمد. 1386. توزیع آماری رشد موضوعات علوم پزشکی در طول زمان: تحلیل همبستگی بین توسعة MeSH و رشد Medline. مدیریت اطلاعات سلامت، 4 (2): 192-185. (دسترسی در 15 آذر 1400) https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=81621

حبیبی، آرش. 1392. روش‌های نمونه‌گیری آماری. https://parsmodir.com/db/research/sampling.php «دسترسی در 8 تیر 1400).

خادمیان، مهدی، مرتضی کوکبی، و فریده عصاره. 1396. امکان جایگزینی یا تکمیل سرعنوان‌های موضوعی کتابخانه کنگره با برچسب‌های اجتماعی لایبرری ثینگ (نمونه‌پژوهی حوزه‌های علوم انسانی، علوم اجتماعی و علوم طبیعی). مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات 28 (2): 43-29. (دسترسی در 23 آذر 1400) http://nastinfo.nlai.ir/article_1720.html

قنواتی، مریم، علیرضا نوروزی، مریم ناخدا، و اشکان خطیر. 1397. بررسی میزان تطابق زبان نمایه‌سازان، نویسندگان، و برچسب‌گذاران در پایگاه اطلاعاتی اریک و مندلی. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات 33 (4): 1750-1729.

محمدپور، معصومه، عصمت مومنی، و مهدی علیپور حافظی. 1395. بررسی میزان همپوشانی میان برچسب‌های مقالات کتابداری در پایگاه مردمی سایت‌یولایک و توصیفگرهای اختصاص‌یافته به همان مقالات در پایگاه لیستا. فصلنامه بازیابی دانش و نظام‌های معنایی 3 (8): 140-121. (دسترسی در 15 آذر 1400) https://jks.atu.ac.ir/article_7247.html

موحدیان، قاسم، احمد شعبانی، مظفر چشمه‌سهرابی، و عاصفه عاصمی. 1399. دیگری‌سازی در نظام‌های سازماندهی منابع کتابخانه‌ای در تقابل با برچسب‌گذاری اجتماعی. فصلنامه مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات 31 (3): 71-58. (دسترسی در 23 آذر 1400) http://nastinfo.nlai.ir/article_2419.html

About Academia.edu. 2021. www.academia.edu/about (accessed Sept. 19, 2021).

Academia.edu Traffic Statistics. 2021. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/academia.edu (accessed Sept. 05, 2021).

Alexa.com. 2021. Academia.edu Traffic Statistics. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/academia.edu (accessed September 05, 2021).

Alexiev, V., M. Breu, J. de Bruijn, D. Fensel, R. Lara, & H. Lausen (Eds.). 2005. Information integration with ontologies: Experiences from an industrial showcase. Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.

Borko, H. & C. L. Bernier. 1978. Indexing Concepts and Methods. New York: Academic Press.

Chan, L. M. 2009. Social bookmarking and subject indexing. Paper presented at the IFLA Satellite Pre-Conference of the Classification and Indexing Section, Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future. Florence, Italy. http://www.webcitation.org/60msdmuFN (accessed March 26, 2020).

Choi, Y., & S. Y. Syn. 2016. Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (5): 1089–1104.

Farooq, U., T. G. Kannampallil, Y. Song, C. H. Ganoe, J. M. Carroll, & C. L. Gilles. 2007. Evaluating tagging behavior in social bookmarking systems: Metrics and design heuristics. In Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work. NewYork: ACM Press: 351-360.

Guo, S. 2010. Survival analysis. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Haustein, S., & I. Peters. 2012. Using social bookmarks and tags as alternative indicators of journal content description. First Monday 17 (11). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4110/3357 (accessed Nov. 14 2020).

Heckner, M., S. Mühlbacher, & C. Wolff. 2008. Tagging Tagging. Analyzysing User Keywords in Scientific Bibliography Management Systems. Journal of Digital Information 9 (2): 1–19.

Heymann, P., G. Koutrika, & H. Garcia-Molina. 2008. Can social bookmarking improve web search? Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Web Search and Web Dat Mining. NewYork: ACM Press: 195-206.

Kipp, M. E. 2006. Complementary or Discrete Contexts in Online Indexing: A Comparison of User, Creator and Intermediary words. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 30 (4). http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1533/01/mkipp-caispaper.pdf. (accessed Dec, 23, 2020).

_____. 2007. Tagging Practices on Research Oriented Social Bookmarking Sites. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS/ Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI 30. http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2027/01/kipp%5F2007.pdf (accessed Dec. 23, 2020).

Kipp, M. E. 2011. Controlled vocabularies and tags: An analysis of research methods. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, 3: 23-32. https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/nasko/article/view/12787/11268 (accessed Sept. 20, 2020).

Kleinbaum, D. G. & M. Klein. 2012. Survival Analysis: A Self-Learning Text, 3rd Edition. New York: Springer.

Lee, D. H., & T. Schleyer. 2010. A comparison of MeSH terms and CiteULike social tags as metadata for the same items. In Proceedings of the First ACM International Conference on Health Informatics: 445–448. New York: ACM Press.

_____. 2012. Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing: A comparison of medical subject headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (9): 1747- 1757. DOI: http://10.1002/asi2265310.1002/asi22653

Lyer, H. & L. Bungo. (2011). An examination of semantic relationships between professionally assigned metadata and user-generated tags for popular literature in complementary and alternative medicine. Information Research 16 (3) paper 482. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/16-3/paper482.html (accessed Sept. 22, 2022).

Marlow, C., M. Naaman, D. Boyd, & M. Davis. 2006. HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read. In Proceedings of the17th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia. www.danah.org/papers/Hypertext2006.pdf. (accessed Sept. 20, 2020).

Miner, G., D. Delen, J. Elder, A. Fast, T. Hill, & R.A. Nisbet. 201. Practical text mining and statistical analysis for non-structured text data applications. Oxford: Academic Press.

Rafferty, P. 2018. Tagging. Knowledge organization 45 (6): 500-516. Doi: 10.5771/0943-7444-2018-6-500

Rorissa, A. 2010. A comparative study of flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (11): 2230–2242. doi:10.1002/asi.21401.

Santos-Neto, E., D. Condon, N. Andrade, A. Iamnitchi, & M. Ripeanu. 2014. Reuse, temporal dynamics, interest sharing, and collaboration in social tagging systems. First Monday 19 (7). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4994/410 (accessed Sept. 4, 2020).

Vaidya, P. & S. N. Harinarayana. 2019. Comparison of User-generated Tags with Subject Descriptors, Author Keywords, and Title Terms of Scholarly Journal Articles: A Case Study of Marine Science. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 7 (1): 29-38. DOI: 10.1633/JISTaP.2019.7.1.3.

Yin, D., L. Hong, Z. Xue, & B. D. Davison. 2011. Temporal dynamics of user interests in tagging systems. In: Proceedings of the twenty fifth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~brian/pubs/2011/AAAI/temporal-dynamics.pdf (accessed Sept. 10, 2020)

Zubiaga, A., R. Mart´ınez, V. Fresno 2011b. Analyzing tag distributions in folksonomies for resource classification. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on knowledge science, engineering and management, (KSEM’11): 91–102: Irvine: Springer-Verlag.