<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="https://www.newme-omeka.rguclass.com/items/show/1">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Bibliometrics for Library and Information Science Research of Policy Document: Insights from Dimension Database]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:subject><![CDATA[Library science]]></dcterms:subject>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[In the identified LIS fields Human Society and Law and Legal Studies have led to higher proportions of documentation and this coverage has rapidly increased since the turn of the 21st century. On the other hand, fields like Mathematical Sciences, Psychology, Physical and Chemical Sciences have remarkably less documents published indicating lack of research attention. Although Engineering and Biological Sciences have always produced a high volume of research, they lag behind Commerce, Management and Biomedical Sciences, in writing policy. While matches in Health Sciences, Information and Computing Sciences and Library and Information Studies increase steadily and slowly, contributing to consistency compared with spikes in other fields, it signals further the increased prioritizing of disciplines specifically related to social situation and jurisprudence. At the same time, Environmental Sciences and Economics have modest growth, but are far from the explosive growth of other fields. The findings from this research emphasize the need for a more evenly balanced focus on fields that are less represented, as well as highlighting trends that reveal larger societal, technological and academic currents affecting research focus worldwide as captured in the Dimension Database.]]></dcterms:description>
    <dcterms:creator><![CDATA[ Ahmed, Merina ]]></dcterms:creator>
    <dcterms:publisher><![CDATA[RGU Journal of social science and research]]></dcterms:publisher>
    <dcterms:date><![CDATA[2025-10-0]]></dcterms:date>
    <dcterms:rights><![CDATA[open access]]></dcterms:rights>
    <dcterms:relation><![CDATA[3049 3366]]></dcterms:relation>
    <dcterms:language><![CDATA[English]]></dcterms:language>
    <dcterms:type><![CDATA[Article]]></dcterms:type>
    <dcterms:identifier><![CDATA[https://doi.org/10.3254/rgujssr.v1i3.75]]></dcterms:identifier>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://www.newme-omeka.rguclass.com/items/show/2">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Bibliometrics for Library and Information Science Research of Policy Document: Insights from Dimension Database]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:subject><![CDATA[Library science]]></dcterms:subject>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[In the identified LIS fields Human Society and Law and Legal Studies have led to higher proportions of documentation and this coverage has rapidly increased since the turn of the 21st century. On the other hand, fields like Mathematical Sciences, Psychology, Physical and Chemical Sciences have remarkably less documents published indicating lack of research attention. Although Engineering and Biological Sciences have always produced a high volume of research, they lag behind Commerce, Management and Biomedical Sciences, in writing policy. While matches in Health Sciences, Information and Computing Sciences and Library and Information Studies increase steadily and slowly, contributing to consistency compared with spikes in other fields, it signals further the increased prioritizing of disciplines specifically related to social situation and jurisprudence. At the same time, Environmental Sciences and Economics have modest growth, but are far from the explosive growth of other fields. The findings from this research emphasize the need for a more evenly balanced focus on fields that are less represented, as well as highlighting trends that reveal larger societal, technological and academic currents affecting research focus worldwide as captured in the Dimension Database.]]></dcterms:description>
    <dcterms:creator><![CDATA[ Ahmed, Merina ]]></dcterms:creator>
    <dcterms:publisher><![CDATA[RGU Journal of social science and research]]></dcterms:publisher>
    <dcterms:date><![CDATA[2025-10-0]]></dcterms:date>
    <dcterms:rights><![CDATA[open access]]></dcterms:rights>
    <dcterms:relation><![CDATA[3049 3366]]></dcterms:relation>
    <dcterms:language><![CDATA[English]]></dcterms:language>
    <dcterms:type><![CDATA[Article]]></dcterms:type>
    <dcterms:identifier><![CDATA[https://doi.org/10.3254/rgujssr.v1i3.75]]></dcterms:identifier>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://www.newme-omeka.rguclass.com/items/show/8">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Library and information science: practice, theory, and philosophical basis]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[This paper presents different facets or aspects of Library and Information Science (LIS) from a theoretical and philosophical perspective. It begins with the presentation of different attitudes towards LIS and the divergence between LIS as a knowledge producing and knowledge utilizing area. It goes on to discuss the different labels for the discipline, its institutional affiliations and some technology driven paradigms. Fields of LIS practices, examples of concrete research problems and the fundamental concepts are introduced as are subareas, theories, related disciplines, and approaches (“paradigms”/metatheories). Also a short presentation of research methods and basic philosophical assumptions is included]]></dcterms:description>
    <dcterms:creator><![CDATA[Birger Hjørland]]></dcterms:creator>
    <dcterms:date><![CDATA[1/05/2000]]></dcterms:date>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://www.newme-omeka.rguclass.com/items/show/6">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[ Library and Information Science]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[For most of its modern history library and information science has been governed by the mode of thinking best characterized as positivism. This epistemology, shared with most of the social sciences for some time, features the quest for universal laws and the reduction of all phenomena, including behavioral, cognitive, and so on, to the physical, among other elements. This means to knowledge is unworkable for this field; a proposed replacement for it is hermeneutical phenomenology. This article outlines the elements of a revised epistemological approach that seeks an understanding of the essences of things (such as the library) and that takes into account, among other things, the intentional stances of the human actors within the realm of library and information science. Such a re-formed epistemology allows for a different set of questions asked and a different approach to answering them.]]></dcterms:description>
    <dcterms:creator><![CDATA[John M. Budd]]></dcterms:creator>
    <dcterms:date><![CDATA[6/1995]]></dcterms:date>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://www.newme-omeka.rguclass.com/items/show/7">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Data science from a library and information science perspective]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Data science is a relatively new field which has gained considerable attention in recent years. This new field requires a wide range of knowledge and skills from different disciplines including mathematics and statistics, computer science and information science. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of the study that explored the field of data science from the library and information science (LIS) perspective]]></dcterms:description>
    <dcterms:creator><![CDATA[Sirje Virkus, Emmanouel Garoufallou]]></dcterms:creator>
    <dcterms:date><![CDATA[2019]]></dcterms:date>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://www.newme-omeka.rguclass.com/items/show/9">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[A bibliometric examination of all the journal articles published in the Malaysian Journal of Library &amp; Information Science from 1996-2000 was carried out. The range of articles published per volume is between 14 and 17; average number of references per article is 22.5; the average length per article is 41.2 pages; 53(69.74%) of the articles are research oriented; the percentage of multi-authored papers is slightly higher at 52.6% or 40 papers out of a total of 76; the most prolific author contributed 12 articles; 36 (45%) of the authors are geographically affiliated to Malaysia; authors affiliated to library schools were well represented (55.2%); the most productive institution is Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya with 26 out of 80 author’s affiliation; the most popular subject is Scientific and Professional Publishing; 30 (39.5%) articles contained author’s self-citation, while the rate of journal self-citation is found to be 27.6% and most of the articles (67.1%) contained no formal acknowledgement.]]></dcterms:description>
    <dcterms:creator><![CDATA[W.S Tiew]]></dcterms:creator>
    <dcterms:date><![CDATA[1/1/2002]]></dcterms:date>
</rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>