I S K O

1. Introduction

The term bibliography is used about a kind of → document (which is characterized by focusing on providing bibliographical references to published documents), as well as about a field of study (or fields of study). This article focuses on the last sense, while an article about the first sense is planned as an independent article.

Foot (2006) found that bibliographical studies originated in Nineteenth century with an emphasis on “enumerative bibliography”, which means the norms and processes of making lists of publications and the typologization and evaluation of such lists. From the end of the Nineteenth century the field widened out to include historical bibliography and the study of books as material objects. In the mid-Twentieth century this wider approach narrowed down, as a consequence of much emphasis being placed on descriptive, analytical, critical and textual bibliography, but again widened out under the influence of French book historians. These different fields (or subfields, approaches or traditions) of bibliography are briefly presented in Section 2 of the present article.

The relations between bibliography on the one hand, and on the other hand information science (here considered synonymous with → library and information science, LIS [1]) with → knowledge organization (KO) are important [2]. What today is called information science had, according to Kline (2004, 19), “bibliography” as one of its former names:

Called bibliography, documentation, and scientific information during the first five decades of the twentieth century, the field became known as information science in the early 1960s. [3]

One of the most important indicators of the relationship between documentation and information science is the change in name of the American Documentation Institute (founded in 1937) in 1968 to the American Society for Information Science (today the Association for Information Science & Technology, ASIS&T) [4]. The term LIS arose in connection with the inclusion of information science by library schools from 1964 until almost all schools had changed to LIS by the end of the 1990s (cf. Galvin 1977).

Documentation is thus a former name of information science, and it is closely related to bibliography [5]. The founder of the documentation movement, Paul Otlet, founded the Institut international de bibliographie (IIB) in 1895, and wrote articles about bibliography as a science (Otlet [1891; 1903] 1990a; 1990b), which understood bibliography to be about publications in general, not just about books. Otlet wrote ([1903] 1990b, 86):

The Science of bibliography can be defined as that science, whose object of study is all questions common to different kinds of documents: production, physical manufacture, distribution, inventory, statistics, preservation, and use of bibliographic documents; that is to say, everything which deals with editing, printing, publishing, bookselling, bibliography, and library economy. The scope of this science extends to all written or illustrated documents which are similar in nature to books: printed or manuscript literary works, books, brochures, journal articles, news reports, published or manuscript archives, maps, plans, charts, schemas, ideograms, diagrams, original or reproductions of drawings, and photographs of real objects.

Otlet created, with Henri La Fontaine, the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which illustrates its close connection to the field of knowledge organization [6].

There are indications that bibliography became less influential in relation to LIS when the field changed name to information science. Bibliography was considered a core element in schools of library science, but gradually the study of information behavior came to play a larger role at the expense of courses in bibliography. There were even some voices claiming “the bibliographical paradigm” to be obsolete (e.g., Henri and Hay 1994), a view which was counter argued by Hjørland (2007).

Michael Buckland raised the question (referred by de Fremery 2024, 1): “What might be gained by reinvigorating bibliography?” This question indicates that bibliography has lost influence in information science, and that this loss may have been harmful. This question was raised by de Fremery (2024), by Hjørland (2024a), and is also central in the present article.

[top of entry]

2. Different subfields of bibliography and their relations to LIS

2.1 Enumerative/systematic bibliography

Hjørland (2024a) found that the most important distinction is between enumerative bibliography (also called systematic bibliography and reference bibliography) on the one hand, and all the other bibliographical traditions on the other hand. Compared to other parts of bibliographical studies, enumerative bibliography seems to lack proper theory as well as recognized bibliographers [7] (one of the leading persons, Theodore Besterman, 1904–1976, was more a compiler of bibliographies than he was a theorist; another, D. W. Krummel, displayed a research attitude and important insights (e.g., in his 1984 book [8], but overall his contributions seem insufficient to form the theoretical basis for enumerative bibliography as a research field). Leading bibliographers, such as W. W. Greg and Donald Francis McKenzie, considered bibliography a science, but did not include enumerative bibliography in this science, as they recognized its utility as a separate activity [9]. (It is well-known that a list of bibliographical references in itself cannot be accepted as a research contribution in academia.) Hjørland (2024a) argued, however, that enumerative bibliography is the part of bibliography which is most important for information science, and that information science with knowledge organization has provided the most important theoretical works which are relevant for this field. In other words enumerative bibliography is more connected with LIS than with other traditions of bibliography. The theoretical contributions from LIS include → classification, → indexing, and → metadata assignment (or resource description) for documents in bibliographical databases, search strategies, recall and precision as evaluation criteria, bibliographical control, the use of references in literature searching, and much more. The term systematic bibliography indicates that candidates for inclusion in the bibliography are based on systematic criteria (e.g., lists of journals being indexed). Systematic bibliographies are necessary for systematic searches, and thereby also for systematic literature reviews, which illustrates its close connection to LIS.

There are various ways of classifying enumerative bibliographies, for example, national bibliographies, subject bibliographies, author bibliographies, and bibliographies limited to certain kinds of documents such as dissertations, journals, journal articles, books, and maps. As already said, bibliographies as kinds of documents fall outside the scope of the present article, but are mentioned here because the study of national bibliography, subject bibliography, etc. are parts of the field of enumerative bibliography.

Hjørland (2024a, xxx) concluded:

A domain in which systematic literature searching and thereby enumerative bibliographies and bibliographical control is taken most seriously is evidence-based medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. Much research is carried out about databases coverage of relevant findings, about retrieval strategies etc. Such research, about the bibliographical coverage and findability of documents relative to a research paradigm is a core issue for a theoretical research in enumerative bibliography as well as in information science.

The relation between enumerative bibliography and literature searching is further developed in Section 5.

[top of entry]

2.2 Analytical, descriptive and textual bibliography

2.2.1 Analytical bibliography

Analytical bibliography studies the processes of making books, especially the material modes of production. One of its purposes is to show how the processes of material production affect the nature and state of the text preserved in the book. A main representative is Philip Gaskell's (1974) A New Introduction to Bibliography. This book covers hand-printed and machine-printed books through the ages.

2.2.2 Descriptive bibliography

Descriptive bibliography emphasizes details about page layout, typefaces, bindings, and other elements that help identify a book’s edition [10]. It draws on analytical bibliography. Probably the main representative of this field is Fredson Bowers’ (1949) book Principles of bibliographical description. As exemplified by de Fremery (2024, 184), the descriptions “created by Bowers and Greg made it possible to know that the Hamlet discussed by scholar A is the same Hamlet discussed by scholar B”.

Three comments should be made. First, it is clear that not every writer can be carefully studied in the way that descriptive bibliography suggests. For average writers, the task of making precise identifications of versions of their works, must be done by themselves in cooperation with publishers and editors. As with the example with two scholars discussing Hamlet, ordinary researchers need to know if the text they read and cite is the same as another author has cited. It is a sign of bad scholarship if the edition or version of a document is not made explicit and precise, for example, when articles are reproduced in edited books.

Second, in relation to electronic documents, two electronic copies of the same text can be considered entirely the same because each bit is checked in the copying process, and the probability that two copies are not exactly similar is extremely small. However, different instantiations [11] or versions often have been published, and even the same file does not interact in the same way with different versions of the software used to display it. These facts are issues to consider in relation to digital documents related to the issues of traditional descriptive bibliography. Gants (2010) presents principles for description of electronic publications analogue to the principles developed by Bowers (1949).

Third, descriptive bibliography is not about the → description of contents of publications, such as done, for example, by abstracting journals (e.g., Chemical Abstracts, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo). Neither is this field about descriptive cataloging of documents (see Tanselle (1977) and Yee (2007) concerning the relations between descriptive bibliography and → library cataloging). The ways of referencing in academic books and journals, such as ISO 690, Harvard system, APA style, Chicago style, MLA style, and Vancouver system or in electronic referencing systems such as EndNote, Zotero, Reference Manager, RefWorks and ProCite have also failed to attract the interest of bibliographers as well as information scientists.

[top of entry]

2.2.3 Textual bibliography

Textual bibliography is also called critical bibliography. It was defined by Reimer (2015):

Textual bibliography attempts to establish the "state" of a text, especially in terms of the various versions that are extant, and analyzing who (author, editor, compositor, printer, etc.) was responsible for particular variants. Textual bibliography is obviously part of the process of preparing a scholarly edition of a text, though its significance is certainly not limited to editors.

Textual bibliography is used to produce critical editions which are attempts to construct a text of a work using all the available evidence. Prominent examples are studies of the Bible, of Shakespeare and other “great books” in different cultures. Such bibliographical studies have often been extremely important for subsequent researchers. Among the influential works in this field is G. Thomas Tanselle's (1990) Textual Criticism and Scholarly Editing.

[top of entry]

2.2.4 Considered together

Considered together, analytical, descriptive and textual bibliography do not have the same importance for LIS as enumerative bibliography has. However, libraries with collections of old and rare books have an interest in such studies in order to identify different versions of the books, and in order to support scholarly research based on them [12]. Therefore, these areas of bibliography are important in relation to the management of some kinds of collections. In addition, principles and concepts developed in these areas may have importance for other areas of bibliography as well as for LIS (Tanselle 1977 advocated for a cooperation between bibliographers and cataloguers).

[top of entry]

2.3 Historical bibliography/sociology of texts/book history

Historical bibliography examines the history of the book as a cultural artifact. It explores how books and other documents have influenced and been influenced by historical contexts, including how they reflect and affect social, cultural, and intellectual movements. It includes the evolution of book production and dissemination over time as well as the history of reading practices. McKenzie (1999) focuses on how texts are intended by their authors as well as on how they are received and interpreted by readers. He advocates for a view of bibliography that not only acknowledges the technical and physical aspects of texts but also fully embraces their social and cultural dimensions. This is a wide field, which has been difficult to define. Krummel (2017, 479) found that if there are differences between historical bibliography and the new fields of study called “print culture” and “book history”, they are subtle and often irrelevant.

Information science also has interest in these kinds of studies, especially as this relates to scientific and scholarly communication and the roles different kinds of documents play in domains, between domains and in relation between science and the broader society. Although this part of bibliographical studies is broad, and in lack of coherence, it is important in order to obtain a deeper understanding of the fundamental issues in information science.

[top of entry]

3. Bibliographies according to the UNISIST model

Bibliography is one among many types of documents. The UNISIST model, originally published in 1971, later revised and updated by Fjordback Søndergaard, Andersen and Hjørland (2003), offers an important sociologically-oriented perspective on the activities of scholarly communication. It seeks to draw attention to information communication between knowledge producer and knowledge user, as a system consisting of diverse organizational and documentary units each contributing to the division of labor in scholarly communication. It provides a model of scientific and technical information services and document types, in two dimensions, of which the most important is based on three levels: (1) primary sources and services, such as books and journals mediated by publishers, (2) secondary sources and services, such as catalogs, bibliographies, and abstracting and indexing journals provided by libraries, clearinghouses and producers of bibliographic databases, and (3) tertiary sources and services, such as systematic reviews and other forms of syntheses of the primary literature.

A model such as the one provided by revised UNISIST Fjordback Søndergaard, Andersen and Hjørland (2003) put bibliographies in the context of different institutions, services and document types, and thereby raises important questions such as, which documents from which disciplines are included in different bibliographies? What are the relative roles of bibliographies for users in obtaining the documents they use? The answers are domain specific, where, for example, evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a field in which bibliographies are extremely important, while, for example, many fields in the social sciences do not rely on bibliographies in the same way.

[top of entry]

4. Bibliographical control/bibliographies as infrastructures

For some purposes, → bibliographical control is important. In general it is considered important in academia that knowledge production is based on knowledge about what has already been written or documented about a certain topic. Throughout history there has been a utopian dream of organizing all publications (or all “information”) and make it possible to identify all relevant documents. Hjørland (2023) discussed the following historical examples of attempts of fulfilling this dream:

• The Library of Alexandria (c. 285- BC)
• Gessner's Bibliotheca universalis (1545)
• The abstract journal and subject bibliographical databases (1790-)
• The Universal Bibliographical Repertory, RBU (1895-)
• Union catalogs (1930s-) with WorldCat (1971)
• IFLA's and UNESCO's program on universal bibliographical control (1970s-)
• The World Wide Web (1989-) and Google

Each of these attempts can also be said to represent important bibliographical infrastructures, and an important task for information science with knowledge organization is to study the effectiveness and efficiency of such infrastructures, to communicate about them to potential users, and contribute to their improvements. These infrastructures are seldom examined from a holistic perspective, but the so-called Sputnik crisis in 1957 made important attempts in the USA to improve its systems of scientific and technological communication, and produced influential reports, including the Weinberg Report (President’s Science Advisory Committee 1963) and the SATCOM report (Committee on scientific and technical communication, SATCOM 1969). See also Rayward (2024) about the overall development of attempts to create international bibliographical control or “information order” since World War II. It seems important that the field of information science maintains a holistic focus on bibliographical infrastructures and their effectiveness and efficiency.

[top of entry]

5. Literature- and information searching

Libraries have for more than one hundred years had important tasks helping users finding the documents they need for their activities. They have done so by designing their catalogues to serve this task, they have provided open collections of reference works with bibliographies and they have made bibliographic guides (now including “lib-guides”) and provided courses in literature searching for students in different disciplines. Library schools were active in this field, for example teaching (enumerative) bibliography as a subject, introducing kinds of bibliographies as well as important examples of concrete bibliographies. Professional organizations, such as the American Library Association (ALA) contributed, for example with publications such as Webb et al.'s (1986) Sources of Information in the Social Sciences: a guide to the literature. In short, bibliography was very important in this period. Before the online period, this was typically called “literature searching”, in the online period typically changed to “information searching” or “information retrieval”, although mostly the same bibliographical databases were used (e.g., Psychological Abstracts founded in 1927, but changed to electronic format and called PsycInfo from 1967).

When the online industry developed from about 1963, their services were partly offered by research libraries, and partly by so-called “information centers”. The formerly influential database host Dialog organized its databases in five main groups (Dialog® Database Selection Guide 2008, 5):

• Bibliographic databases. Each record in a bibliographic database is a reference or citation (many also include a summary or an abstract) to a publication, magazine or journal article, news story, patent, conference paper, etc.
• Numeric databases. Each record in a numeric database is a table of statistical data, often with text added.
• Directory databases. Each record gives factual information about companies, organizations, products, chemical compounds, etc.
• Complete text databases [fulltext databases]. Each record includes the complete text of magazine [or journal] articles, newswire stories, patents, etc. [books, encyclopedias]
• In addition, some databases contain a mix of several different kinds of data, such as bibliographic and fulltext records.

Among these groups, the bibliographic databases played by far the most important role in this period. In library schools (which from 1964 gradually changed their names to schools or departments of LIS) the teaching of bibliography now typically included online searching (an influential textbook was Harter 1986), which clearly contributed to increase the status of LIS/information science.

Around 1990 began a new development when full-text databases became common (which was primarily due to falling costs of storing information on computer discs) and the development of the Internet and search engines. From that time full-text retrieval began to compete with databases that only contains bibliographical records. Bibliographical searching still is important, and, for example in EBM are “classical” databases like MEDLINE still considered core information sources (see Higgins and Green 2009 and updates). The core competencies of information specialists involve both bibliographical databases and fulltext databases, and the basic principles are not much different. What is different, of course, is the tendency to let algorithms and artificial intelligence perform the searches. Hjørland (2015) argued however that such systems, although very user-friendly, do not provide the necessary transparency and control over the search process for important purposes such as EBM. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that core competencies of information professionals to select, use and evaluate information systems are still closely tied to the concept of bibliography.

The research front in the study of bibliography is visible, for example, in EBM, where much research is carried out about databases coverage of relevant findings, about retrieval strategies etc. Such research, about the bibliographical coverage and findability of documents relative to a research paradigm is a core issue for a theoretical research in enumerative bibliography as well as in information science.

[top of entry]

6. Theory of enumerative bibliography

Enumerative bibliography is by some researchers considered a part of bibliographical studies (e.g., Foot 2006), while other researchers have denied this connection (e.g., Greg 1930 and Bowers 1949). It is generally considered theoretically weak compared to other bibliographical traditions. However, as stated in Section 2.1, it is closely related to information science. Here we shall consider its theory with the point of departure in Egan and Shera's (1952) “Foundations of a Theory of Bibliography”, which suggested (1952, 131-134) that → “social epistemology”, an envisioned new field of study should function as a “parent” discipline for (enumerative) bibliography. This paper is often cited as the first occurrence of the term social epistemology, but as documented by Hjørland (2024b) the term was used by Shera (1951, 82) in the context of classification and in another sense. While the 1951 understanding is considered valuable, the understanding provided by Egan and Shera (1952) seems muddled. The analysis of why this is the case can shed light on the theory of enumerative bibliography.

Egan and Shera aimed to base the theory of bibliography on the needs of users, and wrote (1952, 135):

The first basic need is for a complete analysis of the kinds of information, knowledge, and insights developed by all the contributory sciences or disciplines that are brought to bear upon each of the many focal points of human activity. Such analyses would answer, for example, such questions as: What information or knowledge is required when a business enterprise or commercial undertaking proposes to open a new market? What information or knowledge should be available when a legislative body is considering a new or revised tax law? What information or knowledge is essential to a chemical industry that is developing a new synthetic fiber? Such situations might be multiplied indefinitely; although each is unique, all probably fall into a finite number of discoverable types distinguished from one another by the possession of identifiable characteristics.

The authors recognized an important problem (ibid.):

That exploration of this kind cannot be done once and for all is obvious, for the situations themselves will change as the factors that condition them change. An illustration will make this clear. Let it be assumed, for example, that someone should suddenly establish beyond all doubt that the cause of poliomyelitis is not bacteriological but systemic and chemical. Such a development would be immediately reflected in a drastic alteration of the informational needs and requirements of those working to improve the diagnosis, treatment, cure, and prevention of this dread disease.

The example says “suddenly establish beyond all doubt”, but why this reservation? Why not say: “the scientific theory that the cause of poliomyelitis is bacteriological is replaced by a new theory that it is systemic and chemical”? The example therefore suggests that the information needed change when the theory in the domain of enquiry changes. This would require that bibliographic services are tailored to theories rather than to users, a view that corresponds to the domain analytic perspective (cf. Hjørland 2017). In a given field, for example, → art studies or psychology, there may be competing theories and “paradigms”, and thereby a need for competing bibliographical services, in psychology for example cognitive, psychoanalytic and sociocultural services. The providers of bibliographical services are therefore necessarily parts in the epistemological struggles in the domain. (Therefore, as pointed out by Hjørland (2024b), it was very unfortunate that the epistemological understanding of social epistemology in Shera (1951) was replaced by a sociological understanding in Egan and Shera (1952)).

Egan and Shera were right when they suggested social epistemology as a parent discipline for enumerative bibliography, but unfortunately they forgot the important epistemological perspective suggested by Shera (1951), which, according to Hjørland (2024b, 194) implied:

1. That a classification cannot be universal, serving all purposes for everybody, that a classification cannot be permanent;
2. That classificationists build on their predecessors, making classifications developmental and dynamic;
3. That classifications are based on “the materials at hand”, i.e., based on the knowledge and concepts of its time;
4. That classifications are designed to serve specific needs.

Hjørland (2024b, 194) continued:

Shera’s expression “the intellectual environment of its age” may be translated to the dominant worldview, paradigm, epistemology, or metatheory. Probably, we should not take “generation” too literally. It may well be that some classifications have a longer and some have a shorter lifetime and that not all fields of knowledge necessarily develop in a synchronized way. What is important is that the classifier (and the resulting classification) is influenced by views represented in a broader social, cultural, and domain-specific context. This is a clear social epistemological position that denies the possibility of constructing classifications based on the isolated individual’s observation and cognition.

This view is opposed to Otlet’s ([1903] 1990b, 85) view, that considered that bibliography and documentation should communicate scientific information “in an analytic form from which any personal interpretation has been removed”. Otlet’s article even suggested that books would become obsolete, and the production of knowledge would change to publication of catalog cards and loose-leaf publications, which should constantly be updated and replace older catalog cards and loose-leafs [13]. Such thoughts reflect a positivist philosophy, which is strongly opposed to Shera’s social epistemology.

[top of entry]

7. Conclusion

What, then, is bibliography? The conclusion here is that that this term does not relate to a single field of study, but to a family of fields as presented in Section 2. Some of these areas are highly interrelated, whereas enumerative bibliography has a weaker connection to these highly interrelated fields, but has a tighter connection to LIS. Therefore, we cannot expect a single definition of bibliography as a field of study to be found [14].

What, then, is enumerative bibliography (synonyms: systematic bibliography and reference bibliography)? Like the other fields labeled “bibliography” in Section 2, enumerative bibliography is about the study of documents (or “information resources”). The focus of enumerative bibliography is to facilitate information retrieval by listing, analyzing and describing documents in order to enable users to identify the documents needed for a specific task. The concept of bibliographical control is central, just as the synonym systematic bibliography as already said, indicates a relation to systematic search and systematic review.

Enumerative bibliography, in some form or another, is an essential tool for science and scholarship. Hjørland (2012, 63) wrote (translated from Danish): “All good research — and all good, independent university assignments — begin and end in the literature of the discipline”.

If a person P is educated in discipline X, this means that the research done in X is what makes P a professional person (as contrasted to an amateur). P may draw on other disciplines, but the point of departure is the field in which P is educated. P may find serious gaps or problems in the literature of X (in general or just in relation to P’s topic), and therefore P may draw on other disciplines or on his own common sense. This implies, however, an attempt to improve X, and if P argues for this in the literature of X it may constitute a contribution to X. If nobody contributes to X, and if claims in X are not examined, then X will be sterile, obsolete, or simply useless. This implies that people educated in X, including P, cannot be a competent professional, although they may be unaware of this because they have not examined the basis of what they have been taught. This process also implies that a contribution to X is not just an isolated fragment, but is at the same time an argument about developing X in a certain direction. There are always plenty of different directions in which a given discipline can be developed, but if too many ways are followed at the same time, it means that the discipline is dominated by what Cronin (2002) and Hjørland (2013, 208) called “centrifugal forces” bringing about conceptual fragmentation with the risk of a dissolution of the field. Any discipline therefore needs a balance between centripetal and centrifugal tendencies [15] in its research fields.

It follows that in well-functioning disciplines or specialties, researchers are interested in following what their colleagues are doing, and the directions in which the field is developing. For this purposes, different kinds of bibliographic tools are important for current awareness as well as retrospective searches and citation networks. In order to support these activities in an optimal way, bibliographic tools must be based on knowledge of theoretical positions in the field, and a conscious priority. Billig (2013) suggested that in order to success in the social science, researchers must learn to write badly. Of course, this is not an ideal that bibliographical services should aim at supporting, but Billig’s view should not be considered a joke, but a serious criticism of the state of the art in these domains, which is also important to know about for information and KO professionals.

Hjørland (1992, 189) concluded: “Thus an analysis of a subject is itself, at its most profound, a part of the scientific process of knowledge gathering”. This can be generalized to bibliography as a whole: the provision of bibliographical services and product, is, in the end, a matter of supporting the activities of researchers and the theoretical development of the discipline or specialty. If, for example, information specialists are unable to distinguish between bad and good writing in the way suggested by Billig, they are in a bad position to provide quality information services [16]. In short, a subject bibliography is a kind of map of a subject domain, and as is the case with other maps, it cannot be a neutral mapping [17]. This view corresponds to Shera’s 1951 social epistemology, and is opposed to Otlet’s positivism as described above.

Acker, Wouter van. 2011. Universalism as Utopia : A Historical Study of the Schemes and Schemas of Paul Otlet (1868-1944). Ph.D. dissertation. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University. Faculty of Engineering and Architecture. Available at https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/1942681.

Becher, Tony, and Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd ed. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Biagetti, Maria Teresa. 2022. “The Indexical Bibliography: A Historic-Bibliographic Paradigm for Knowledge Organization”. Advances in Knowledge Organization 18: 37-48.

Billig, Michael. 2013. Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bowers, Fredson. 1949. Principles of Bibliographical Description. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Buckland, Michael. 2021. „Foreword.“ In Hyperdocumentation by Olivier Le Deuff. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, x-xiv

Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication (SATCOM). (1969). Scientific and Technical Communication. A Pressing National Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Cowley, John Duncan. 1939. Bibliographical Description and Cataloging. London, UK: Grafton & Co.

Cronin, Blaise. 2002. “Holding the Center while Prospecting at the Periphery: Domain Identity and Coherence in North American Information Studies Education”. Education for Information 20, no. 1:
3–10. DOI 10.3233/EFI-2002-20102.

de Fremery, Wayne. 2024. Cats, Carpenters, and Accounts. Bibliographical Foundations of Information Science. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Open Access at https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5773/Cats-Carpenters-and-AccountantsBibliographical.

Dialog® Database Selection Guide. 2008. Eds. Raymond Niro, Beverley Crane and Louise Dagit. The Thomson Corporation. http://web.archive.org/...

Egan, Margaret E. and Jesse H. Shera. 1952. “Foundations of a Theory of Bibliography”. Library Quarterly 22, no. 2: 125-137.

Fjordback Søndergaard, Trine, Jack Andersen and Birger Hjørland. 2003. “Documents and the Communication of Scientific and Scholarly Information: Revising and Updating the UNISIST Model”. Journal of Documentation 59, no. 3: 278–320.

Foot, Mirjam M. 2006. “The Study of Books”. Aslib Proceedings 58, Nos. 1-2, pp. 20-33. DOI 10.1108/00012530610648653.

Galvin, Thomas J. 1977. “Pittsburgh. University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences”. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, ed. Allen Kent, Harold Lancour, and Jay E. Daily. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 22: 280-91.

Gants, David L. 2010. “Descriptive Bibliography and Electronic Publication”. In Textual Cultures: Cultural Texts. Essays and Studies, eds. Orietta Da Rold and Elaine M. Treharne. Cambridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781846158902.007.

Gaskell, Philip. 1974. A New Introduction to Bibliography, reprint wit corrections. Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press.

Greg, Walter Wilson. 1930. “The Present Position of Bibliography”. The Library 11, no. 3: 241-262, Fourth series.

Harter, Stephen P. 1986. Online Information Retrieval. Concepts, Principles, and Techniques. New York: Academic Press.

Henri, James and Lyn Hay. 1994. “Beyond the Bibliographic Paradigm: User Education in the Information Age”. 60th IFLA General Conference: Conference Proceedings: August 21-27, 1994. Retrieved 2007-05-22 from: http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-henj.htm.

Higgins, Julian P. T. and Sally Green (eds). 2009. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.0.2. London: The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.0.2/ (for an updated version of this handbook see https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current).

Hjørland, Birger. 1992. “The Concept of ‘Subject’ in Information Science”. Journal of Documentation, 48, no. 2: 172-200. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026895.

Hjørland, Birger. 2000. “Documents, Memory Institutions and Information Science”. Journal of Documentation 56, no. 1: 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007107.

Hjørland, Birger. 2007. “Arguments for 'the Bibliographical Paradigm': Some Thoughts Inspired by the new English Edition of the UDC”. Information Research. An International Electronic Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, paper colis06. https://informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis06.html.

Hjørland, Birger. 2012. ”Om problemformuleringer i biblioteks-, dokumentations- og informationsvidenskab”. Nordisk tidsskrift for informationsvidenskab og kulturformidling 1, no. 3: 63-74. https://doi.org/10.7146/ntik.v1i3.26077. English summary: p. 100: https://tidsskrift.dk/ntik/article/view/26082/22954.

Hjørland, Birger. 2013. “Information Science and its Core Concepts: Levels of Disagreement”. In Theories of Information, Communication and Knowledge: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Eds. Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan and Thomas M. Dousa. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 205-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6973-1_9.

Hjørland, Birger. 2015. “Classical Databases and Knowledge Organization: A Case for Boolean Retrieval and Human Decision-Making during Searches”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, no. 8: 1559-1575.DOI: 10.1002/asi.23250.

Hjørland, Birger. 2016. “Knowledge Organization”. Knowledge Organization 43, no. 6: 475-84. Also available in Birger Hjørland and Claudio Gnoli, eds. ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/knowledge_organization.

Hjørland, Birger. 2017. “Domain Analysis”. Knowledge Organization 44, no. 6: 436-464. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, eds. Birger Hjørland and Claudio Gnoli, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/domain_analysis.

Hjørland, Birger. 2018a. “Library and Information Science (LIS). Part 1”. Knowledge Organization 45, no. 3: 232-254. DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-3-232.

Hjørland, Birger. 2018b. “Library and Information Science (LIS). Part 2”. Knowledge Organization 45, no. 4: 319-338. DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-4-319.

Hjørland, Birger. 2023. “Bibliographical Control”. Knowledge Organization 50, no. 4: 301-315. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, eds. Birger Hjørland and Claudio Gnoli, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/control

Hjørland, Birger. 2024a. “Bibliographical Foundations of Information Science: A Review Essay”. Journal of Documentation. (Published as “EarlyCite,” i.e., vol., issue and pages are not yet available). https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2024-0126 (the author accepted manuscript is available OA at: https://www.isko.org/notices/hjorland2024aam.pdf).

Hjørland, Birger. 2024b. “Social Epistemology”. Knowledge Organization 51, no. 3: 187-202. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, eds. Birger Hjørland and Claudio Gnoli, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/se

Hjørland, Birger and Lykke Kyllesbech Nielsen. 2001. “Subject Access Points in Electronic Retrieval”. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 35: 249-98. Published by Information Today for the American Society for Information Science and Technology. This volume is freely available in Hathi Trust Digital Library at: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000055717.

Kline, Ronald R. 2004. “What Is Information Theory a Theory Of? Boundary Work among Information Theorists and Information Scientists in the United States and Britain during the Cold War”. In The History and Heritage of Scientific and Technical Information Systems: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference, Chemical Heritage Foundation, eds. W. Boyd Rayward & Mary Ellen Bowden. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 15-28.

Krummel, D.W. 1986. Bibliographies: Their Aims and Methods, 2nd ed. London, UK: Mansell.

Krummel, D.W. 2017. “Bibliography”. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences 4th ed. Edited by John D. McDonald and Michael Levine-Clark. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, vol. 1: 468-479.

McKenzie, D. F. 1999. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Otlet, Paul. 1990a [1891]. “Something about Bibliography”. In International Organisation and Dissemination of Knowledge: Selected Essays of Paul Otlet, translated and edited by W. Boyd Rayward from “Un peu de bibliographie,” 1891. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 11–24.

Otlet, Paul. 1990b [1903]. “The Science of Bibliography and Documentation”. In The International Organization and Dissemination of Knowledge: Selected essays of Paul Otlet, trans. and ed. W. Boyd Rayward from “Les sciences bibliographiques et la documentation,” 1903. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 71–86.

President’s Science Advisory Committee (1963). [The Weinberg Panel]. Science, Government, and Information: the responsibilities of the technical community and the government in the transfer of information. [The Weinberg Report] Washington, D.C.: The White House. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/weinbergreport1963.pdf.

Rayward, W. Boyd. 2024. “The Attempt to Create a Post-World War II International Information Order”. IFLA Journal (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) (OnlineFirst) https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352241242123.

Reimer, Stephen R. 2015. “Manuscript Studies, Medieval and Early Modern: I.ii. Four Branches of Bibliographical Study. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~sreimer/ms-course/course/branchs.htm.

Serrai, Alfredo. 1988-2001. Storia della Bibliografia, 11 vols. Roma, Italia: Bulzoni.

Shera, Jesse H. 1951. “Classification as the Basis of Bibliographic Organization”. In Bibliographic Organization: Papers presented before the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Graduate Library School July 24-29, 1950, ed. Jesse H. Shera and Margaret E. Egan, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 72-93.

Smiraglia, Richard P. 2001. “Further Progress toward Theory in Knowledge Organization”. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 26, nos. 2/3: 30–49. https://lazykoblog.knoworg.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/1_multipart_xf8ff_2_smiraglia.pdf.

Smiraglia, Richard P. 2017. “Data and Metadata Instantiation: Use Cases and a Conceptual model”. In DCMI'17: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. Washington, DC: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, 25-26. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/3183831.3183836.

Smiraglia, Richard P. and Charles van den Heuvel. 2013. "Classifications and Concepts: Towards an Elementary Theory of Knowledge Interaction." Journal of Documentation 69, no. 3: 360-383. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2012-0092.

Tanselle, G. Thomas. 1977. ”Descriptive Bibliography and Library Cataloguing”. Studies in Bibliography 30: 1-56.

Tanselle, G. Thomas. 1990. Textual Criticism and Scholarly Editing. Charlottesville: Published for the Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia by the University Press of Virginia. The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. 2014. 14th ed. London: Times Books.

UNISIST. 1971. Study Report on the Feasibility of a World Science Information System, by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Webb, William H., Alan R. Beals and Carl Milton White (eds.). 1986. Sources of Information in the Social Sciences. A Guide to the Literature, 3. ed. Chicago: American Library Association.

Yee, Martha M. 2007. “Cataloging Compared to Descriptive Bibliography, Abstracting and Indexing Services, and Metadata”. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 44, nos. 3–4: 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v44n03_10.