The relevance of bibliometric analysis of publications on the application of the Library and Bibliographic Classification (LBC) is due to the scale and pace of fundamental transformations in Russia. At the end of the 20th century the practice of bibliographic reflection of the documentary flow on the issues of the Soviet LBC was broken. In 1990 a retrospective scientific and auxiliary index of works on a wide range of LBC-related problems published in our country and abroad was published for the last time. For more than thirty years the needs for completeness of information and bibliographic support of specialists engaged in the development, study and implementation of the LBC have significantly increased. The gradual obsolescence of any library classification used for systematization of the colossal document flow has caused the increased scientific interest in the development of the concept of a new edition of the LBC Medium Schedules. The purpose of bibliometric analysis of publications on LBC issues is to determine the directions of scientific research of this problematic. To achieve this goal, a scientific and auxiliary index on LBC was formed, which included 219 publications (from 2001 to 2023 editions). The search was carried out using the keywords “Library and Bibliographic Classification” and “LBC” on the electronic resources of the Russian State Library, in the scientific electronic library elibrary.ru, on the official websites of Russian libraries of different subordination, on the portal of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO). The object of analysis is the flow of publications on the theory and practice of this classification system. The instrumental apparatus includes both general scientific and special methods of quantitative and qualitative study of flows of scientific and information documents. Bibliometric analysis of publications on the theory and practice of LBC application allowed us to identify the main directions of scientific research in this problem area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Volkova et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: