Article
Objective: To analyze the production ways and the elements of distinction of the citation practices in the field of Knowledge Organization and Representation in Brazil from 2015 to 2018. The specific objectives are mapping the most productive and cited authors of the period in the domain of Knowledge Organization and Representation and identify the authors´ citation reasons of the most cited authors as of their scientific contributions. Methods: It configures as a contribution of bibliographical and descriptive character. It uses the scientometric method through content and subject analysis techniques to demonstrate the motivations of the citation practices of researchers related to the domain of the Organization and Knowledge Representation. Results: The predominance of citation in national researchers is evident in the analyzed clipping, with emphasis on the author Fujita, M. S. L. and the author Guimarães, J. A. C. Concerning the reasons for citations, the domain of the conceptual dimension stands out with 93.2%. In contrast, the social dimension appears with only 6.8% of the total occurrences. In the distribution of the reasons for the citations by categories, we can highlight the occurrences aimed at supporting statements and information, which received 1,148 mentions, as well as the reasons aimed at more theoretical and conceptual discussions, with a total of 902 linked reasons. Conclusions: Considering the forms of production and the instances of consecration pointed out by the binomial production-citation, from the results, the position of the most productive authors in the field reverberated in citations, with plural reasons and motivations concentrated on supporting arguments, exemplifying situations, cases, and points of view, as well as theoretical, conceptual and methodological definitions and clarifications.@en
Array ( [dateOfAvailability] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [2021-02-11] => 156627 ) ) ) [hasAuthor] => Array ( [nn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Rinaldo Ribeiro de Melo] => 146603 ) [1] => Array ( [Murilo Artur Araújo da Silveira] => 6631 ) [2] => Array ( [Raimundo Santos] => 156846 ) [3] => Array ( [Murilo Silveira] => 4343 ) ) ) [hasFileStorage] => Array ( [nn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [_repository/271/2021/02/oai_periodicos_ufsc_br_article_78062#00016.pdf] => 156952 ) ) ) [hasPageEnd] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [22] => 3600 ) ) ) [hasPageStart] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [1] => 696 ) ) ) [hasSectionOf] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Artigo] => 3 ) ) ) [hasSubject] => Array ( [en] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Citation studies] => 178958 ) [1] => Array ( [Citation practices] => 156841 ) [2] => Array ( [Citation reasons] => 156842 ) [3] => Array ( [Brazil] => 235900 ) [4] => Array ( [Sociocultural conception] => 156843 ) [5] => Array ( [Knowledge organization] => 249069 ) ) [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Estudo de citação] => 200103 ) [1] => Array ( [Prática de citação] => 32764 ) [2] => Array ( [Razão da citação] => 156844 ) [3] => Array ( [Brasil] => 235905 ) [4] => Array ( [Concepção sociocultural] => 261454 ) [5] => Array ( [Brazil] => 249032 ) [6] => Array ( [Estudos de citação] => 261452 ) [7] => Array ( [Práticas de citação] => 263800 ) [8] => Array ( [Organização do conhecimento] => 261537 ) [9] => Array ( [Estudo de citação] => 6629 ) ) [es] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Brasil] => 236169 ) ) ) [wasPublicationInDate] => Array ( [nn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [2021-02-17] => 261433 ) ) ) [hasLanguageExpression] => Array ( [nn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [pt] => 232736 ) ) ) [hasLicense] => Array ( [nn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Copyright (c)] => 232755 ) [1] => Array ( [CCBY4.0] => 232756 ) ) ) [isPartOfSource] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Encontros Bibli: Revista Eletrônica de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação] => 271 ) ) ) [hasIssueOf] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [ISSUE:JNL:00016-2021-26-] => 153151 ) ) ) [hasAbstract] => Array ( [en] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Objective: To analyze the production ways and the elements of distinction of the citation practices in the field of Knowledge Organization and Representation in Brazil from 2015 to 2018. The specific objectives are mapping the most productive and cited authors of the period in the domain of Knowledge Organization and Representation and identify the authors´ citation reasons of the most cited authors as of their scientific contributions. Methods: It configures as a contribution of bibliographical and descriptive character. It uses the scientometric method through content and subject analysis techniques to demonstrate the motivations of the citation practices of researchers related to the domain of the Organization and Knowledge Representation. Results: The predominance of citation in national researchers is evident in the analyzed clipping, with emphasis on the author Fujita, M. S. L. and the author Guimarães, J. A. C. Concerning the reasons for citations, the domain of the conceptual dimension stands out with 93.2%. In contrast, the social dimension appears with only 6.8% of the total occurrences. In the distribution of the reasons for the citations by categories, we can highlight the occurrences aimed at supporting statements and information, which received 1,148 mentions, as well as the reasons aimed at more theoretical and conceptual discussions, with a total of 902 linked reasons. Conclusions: Considering the forms of production and the instances of consecration pointed out by the binomial production-citation, from the results, the position of the most productive authors in the field reverberated in citations, with plural reasons and motivations concentrated on supporting arguments, exemplifying situations, cases, and points of view, as well as theoretical, conceptual and methodological definitions and clarifications.] => 0 ) [1] => Array ( [Objective: To analyze the production ways and the elements of distinction of the citation practices in the field of Knowledge Organization and Representation in Brazil from 2015 to 2018. The specific objectives are mapping the most productive and cited authors of the period in the domain of Knowledge Organization and Representation and identify the authors? citation reasons of the most cited authors as of their scientific contributions. Methods: It configures as a contribution of bibliographical and descriptive character. It uses the scientometric method through content and subject analysis techniques to demonstrate the motivations of the citation practices of researchers related to the domain of the Organization and Knowledge Representation. Results: The predominance of citation in national researchers is evident in the analyzed clipping, with emphasis on the author Fujita, M. S. L. and the author Guimarães, J. A. C. Concerning the reasons for citations, the domain of the conceptual dimension stands out with 93.2%. In contrast, the social dimension appears with only 6.8% of the total occurrences. In the distribution of the reasons for the citations by categories, we can highlight the occurrences aimed at supporting statements and information, which received 1,148 mentions, as well as the reasons aimed at more theoretical and conceptual discussions, with a total of 902 linked reasons. Conclusions: Considering the forms of production and the instances of consecration pointed out by the binomial production-citation, from the results, the position of the most productive authors in the field reverberated in citations, with plural reasons and motivations concentrated on supporting arguments, exemplifying situations, cases, and points of view, as well as theoretical, conceptual and methodological definitions and clarifications.] => 0 ) ) [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Objetivo: Analisar as formas de produção e os elementos de distinção das práticas de citação no domínio da Organização e Representação do Conhecimento no Brasil de 2015 a 2018. Os objetivos específicos são: mapear os autores mais produtivos e citados do período no domínio de Organização e Representação do Conhecimento e identificar as razões de citação dos autores mais citados do período a partir de suas contribuições científicas. Método: Configura-se como uma contribuição de natureza bibliográfica e descritiva. Utiliza-se o método cientométrico por meio das técnicas de análise de conteúdo e de assunto para demonstrar as motivações das práticas de citações dos pesquisadores vinculados ao domínio da Organização e Representação do Conhecimento. Resultado: Evidencia-se a predominância de citação em pesquisadores nacionais no recorte analisado, com ênfase para a autora Fujita, M. S. L. e o autor Guimarães, J. A. C. Em relação às razões de citações, destaca-se o domínio da dimensão conceitual com 93,2%, em contrapartida, a dimensão social aparece com apenas 6,8% do total das ocorrências. Na distribuição das razões das citações por categorias podem-se destacar as ocorrências voltadas para a sustentação de declarações e informações, que receberam 1.148 menções, bem como as razões voltadas para discussões mais teóricas e conceituais, com o total de 902 razões vinculadas. Conclusões: Em que pesem as formas de produção e as instâncias de consagração apontadas pelo binômio produção-citação a partir dos resultados, a posição dos autores mais produtivos no campo reverbera em citações, com razões plurais e motivações concentradas na sustentação de argumentos, exemplificação de situações, casos e pontos de vista, bem como de definições e esclarecimentos teóricos, conceituais e metodológicos.] => 0 ) ) ) [hasID] => Array ( [nn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/78062] => 0 ) ) ) [hasRegisterId] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78062] => 0 ) ) ) [hasSource] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação; Vol. 26 (2021); 01-22] => 0 ) [1] => Array ( [Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação; v. 26 (2021); 01-22] => 0 ) [2] => Array ( [1518-2924] => 0 ) ) [es] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Encontros Bibli: revista electrónica de bibliotecología y ciencias de la información.; Vol. 26 (2021); 01-22] => 0 ) ) ) [hasTitle] => Array ( [en] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Citation practices in Knowledge Organization and Representation in Brazil] => 0 ) ) [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Práticas de citação na Organização e Representação do Conhecimento no Brasil] => 0 ) ) ) [hasUrl] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78062/45514] => 0 ) ) [nn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78062] => 0 ) [1] => Array ( [https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78062/45514] => 0 ) [2] => Array ( [https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78062/53828] => 0 ) [3] => Array ( [https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78062/45857] => 0 ) [4] => Array ( [https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78062/45856] => 0 ) ) ) [prefLabel] => Array ( [pt] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [Oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/78062#00016] => 0 ) ) ) [hasDOI] => Array ( [nn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e78062] => 0 ) ) ) )