Problematyka artykułów z czasopisma „Nowa Biblioteka. Usługi, Technologie Informacyjne i Media” na podstawie analizy słów kluczowych (2010-2018)

Abstract

Thesis/Objective – Next to abstracts keywords are most often used tools of content analysis of scholarly publications, including journal papers. The aim of this article is to present the results of keyword analysis for articles published in the journal „Nowa Biblioteka. Usługi, Technologie Informacyjne i Media” and evaluate their interdisciplinarity. Research methods – The authors analyzed 26 volumes of the journal with 207 pieces selected from the journal sections entitled Artykuły i komunikaty (Articles and messages) and Prace drobne (Minor works) published in the years 2010-2018. Next, the meaning of 901 keywords was defined – keywords were assigned formal categories (personal names and group names, geographic names, titles, institution and organization names, names of software, computer systems and databases, names of local and nation-wide events, historical names and periods) and subject categories (the latter based on Polish Bibliography of Book Studies). The statistical method enabled the authors to show trends in article indexing (including the size of uncontrolled keyword collection, percentage of keyword types, number of keywords in articles). Results and conclusions – More than 60% (65, 59%) of keywords is related to book studies and information studies, the rest remaining beyond the subject categories used in Polish Bibliography of Book Studies. Those keywords usually refer to library studies (20, 65%), information and documentation (15,43%) and book structure and history (14,98%). Other issues reflected belong to the field of literature studies, culture studies, history and, less often, law and theology. It is important to notice high dispersion of keywords – 87,3% of them were used only once. Furthermore, the analysis brought some discoveries on the quality and correctness of article indexing methods. The authors noticed scarce presence of synonymy and homonymy but incorrect construction of keywords (the same keywords provided in single and plural form) and insufficient precision, in particular in the case of proper names.