Author:
Nicolaisen Jeppe,Hjørland Birger
Abstract
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.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems
Reference57 articles.
1. Andersen, H. (2000), “Influence and reputation in the social sciences – how much do researchers agree?”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 674‐92.
2. Bradford, S.C. (1934), “Sources of information on specific subjects”, Engineering, Vol. 26, pp. 85‐6.
3. Bradford, S.C. (1948), Documentation, Crosby Lockwood, London.
4. Bradford, S.C. (1953), Documentation, 2nd ed., Crosby Lockwood, London.
5. Brookes, B.C. (1969), “Bradford's law and the bibliography of science”, Nature, Vol. 224, pp. 953‐6.
Cited by
42 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献