A phenomenological study of acclaimed editorial bias in academic publishing among library and information science scholars

This study explores the information-seeking behaviour of Ph.D. scholars in Library and Information Science (LIS) at Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University (RTMNU) during 2013–2018. Using a descriptive survey method, 52 valid responses (86.6%) were analyzed through a structured questionnaire and interviews. The results show that thesis or dissertation writing (88%) and publishing research papers (74%) were the main purposes for seeking information. Digital resources dominated, with daily use of websites (55%) and e-journals (43%). Overall, websites (90%) and e-journals (85%) were the most used, while print journals (46%) were less preferred. Scholars preferred print for books (62%) but digital for journals (72%) and theses/reports (65%). Major challenges included poor internet speed (54%), difficulty in evaluating online information (47%), and lack of awareness of e-resources (41%). Library services such as access to e-resources (72%) and reference services (58%) were frequently used. Satisfaction levels showed 44% satisfied and 21% very satisfied, while 15% expressed dissatisfaction. Suggestions highlighted remote access to e-resources (71%), better ICT infrastructure (63%), and training workshops (55%). The study concludes that LIS scholars rely heavily on digital resources alongside print. Strengthening ICT, awareness, and training can further enhance research productivity.

ABSTRACTThe aim of the present study is to determine the collaborative activities of Asian library and information science (LIS) researchers through bibliometric, social network analysis at the author, institution, and country levels of the LIS publications produced by Asian researchers. For the study, research articles were derived from the 1994–2013 Web of Science (WoS) archives. Coauthor analysis software was used to analyze author contributions on the New Modified Author Activity Index (NMAAI1, 2, 3)—a measurement tool to evaluate author research activities. Results reveal (a) that LIS “institutions collaboration pattern” outcomes did not yield strong collaboration with Asian countries or regions, (b) intracontinent and intercontinent collaboration was less harmonious on institutional and author levels, and (c) interpretation through NMAAI1,2,3 revealed that Asian countries did not produce sufficient collaborative LIS publications. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, India, Iran, Israel, and Turkey have been producing ample LIS papers, but the United States and United Kingdom emerged as leaders. This work provides a holistic view of Asian LIS development and emphasizes individual levels of collaboration, finding that most influential authors serve on coauthor networks, which differentiates this study from previous studies in the LIS field. There is immense need to develop liaisons, sign memoranda of understanding (MOUs), and participate in combined research plans and short-term research exchange programs.

Introduction. This paper examines CoLIS proceedings since its inception, addressing two questions: 1) has CoLIS achieved its goal of convening a critical mass of library and information science (LIS) scholars to articulate and demarcate the field’s sphere of reality?; and 2) has CoLIS developed a community of practice for scholars exploring the general conception of the discipline, as it was designed to do? (Vakkari, 1992). Method. The paper examined 362 short and full papers published in the 1991-2022 CoLIS proceedings. Published prefaces, keynote addresses, and calls for submissions informed the analytic framework. Analysis. Analyses included authorship trends and the nature of the papers themselves, including types of methodologies, and depths of reflection on research practices and conceptual underpinnings of the field. Papers were analysed using a community of practice framework, alongside the articulated goals for CoLIS conferences (Vakkari, 1992; Wenger, 1999). Results. Most CoLIS papers were conceptual, qualitative, and textual by design, and report results of research studies. Only a small subset were reflective papers, articulating the conceptual underpinnings of library and information science. Conclusion. CoLIS is an engaged community, particularly in Nordic countries, the United Kingdom, and Europe. There is potential to expand into a vibrant, global community of practice to examine conceptions of the discipline.

The application of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in information and knowledge management (IKM) has attracted the attention of library and information Science (LIS) scholars in the recent past. The multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of ICTs means that the ICT literature is published in several fields of knowledge. Although Bradford’s law of dispersion is commonly used to determine the core journals in a given field or discipline or topic of study, this study attempts to use the principles of the law to determine the core concepts of ICTs within the information and knowledge management literature. Data was obtained from EBSCO Discovery’s Library, Information Science and Technology s (LISTA) and the Library and Information Science Source (LISS) databases using a variety of keywords as search terms. The procedures of conducting a Bradford analysis were followed to determine the core subject terms in ICTs as reflected in the IKM group of articles published between 1998 and 2017. The results indicate that the application of ICTs in IKM largely occurs in the fields medicine, business and commerce, education and training (higher education and training), decision sciences, and industrial management. It was also noted that the core subjects varied from one study period to another; technology-associated subject terms were largely visible; and the dispersion of subject terms fits the Bradford’s dispersion. We however noted that the dispersion of articles according to Bradford’s zones is not accurately representative of the principles of the Law. The study has implications for collection development, searching and retrieval practices, and the application of Bradford’s law beyond the analysis of core journals or publications in not only IKM but also in the field of library and information science.

INTRODUCTION Peer-review practices in scholarly publishing are changing. Digital publishing mechanisms allow for open peer review, a peer review process that discloses author and reviewer identities to one another. This model of peer review is increasingly implemented in scholarly publishing. In science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines, open peer review is implemented in journal publishing processes, and, in the humanities and social sciences, it is often coupled with new scholarship practices, such as the digital humanities. This article reports findings from an exploratory study on peer-review and publishing practices in Library and Information Science (LIS), focusing on LIS’s relationships with open peer review. METHODS Editors of LIS journals were surveyed regarding journal peer review and publishing practices. RESULTS This article reports the general “pulse” of attitudes and conversations regarding open peer review and discusses its challenges in LIS. Results show an ideological split between traditionally-published journals and open access and association-affiliated journals. Open access and association-affiliated journal editors are more likely to consider investigating open peer review. DISCUSSION The LIS community of journal editors, authors, reviewers, and readers need to discuss open peer review as well as experiment with it. Experiments with open peer review in scholarly LIS publishing will inform our praxis as librarians.

dLIST is running a survey "to understand the self-archiving behaviors of scholars in Library and Information Science (LIS) and use/non-use of the Digital Library of Information Science and Technology (DLIST). You are eligible to participate because you are either an author or a reader of articles in LIS journals, a faculty in a LIS school/other academic unit or a registered user or potential user of DLIST."

Scholarly communication plays a significant role in the development and dissemination of research outputs in library and information science (LIS). This study presents findings from a survey which examines the key attributes that characterize the publishing by Pakistani LIS scholars, i.e. academics and professionals, in national journals. A pilot-tested, electronic questionnaire was used to collect the data from the target population. 104 respondents (or 69.3% of target) provided feedback on areas such as number of articles published, number of citations, and the nature of any collaboration with other authors. The findings of this survey revealed that, among the various designated regions of Pakistan, the Punjab region was the most highly represented. In articles published in national journals, there was a clear preference among all respondents to collaborate with at least one other author. The citation metrics for LIS articles in national journals were relatively low (30.22%), which aligns with Scimago’s Journal and Country Rankings. The uptake of social scholarly networks mirrors international trends. Respondents were asked to score factors which could impact negatively on their ability to undertake research and/or publish the results. The study recommends that concerned stakeholders work together, as appropriate, to address concerns. In addition, it recommends that further research be undertaken to define patterns of Pakistani co-authorship in the social sciences.

Purpose – The convergence of librarianship and information science to form library and information science (LIS) is seen as a recent phenomenon, with the term “information science” originally focused on the application of computers to library operations and services. LIS as a science and multidisciplinary field applies the practice and perspective of information with the aim of answering important questions related to the activities of a target group. As a science, LIS is more than a collection of facts to be memorised or techniques to be mastered but is instead an inquiry carried out by people who raise questions for which answers are unknown and who have gained confidence in their ability to reach conclusions, albeit tentative ones, through research, experiment and careful thought sharpened by the open criticism of others. What is described here is a dynamic and changing field of study called LIS which differs from Cronin ' s (2004) conclusion that library science or LIS is neither a science nor a discipline. Like any other science, LIS continues to emerge, evolve, transform and dissipate in the ongoing conversation of disciplines. Design/methodology/approach – To understand LIS, this paper thoroughly reviewed the literature by paying attention to the genesis of the terms “information”, “documentation”, “science” and “librarianship”, and then the interdisciplinary nature of library science and information science. Findings – The differences between librarianship and information science are an indication that there are two different fields in a strong interdisciplinary relation, rather than one being a special case of the other. LIS has grown to be a scientific discipline, knowledge and a process that allows abandoning or modifying previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence. Therefore, like any other science, LIS is a science and discipline in its own right that continues to emerge, evolve, transform and dissipate in the ongoing conversation of disciplines. Originality/value – What is described here is a dynamic and changing field of study and a science called LIS that differs from Cronin ' s (2004) assessment that library science or LIS is neither a science nor a discipline. The originality of the paper is rooted in a growing discussion to understand the relevance and appreciate the continued existence of LIS as a science and a field of study.

Library and information science (LIS) research is becoming more quantitative. However, statistics is not extensively taught within LIS research methods courses, and statistics courses are uncommon within LIS programs. Previous research on statistics in LIS revealed that researchers have mainly relied on descriptive statistics in publications. This article argues that LIS’s partner disciplines, such as sociology, emphasize statistical training more so than do LIS programs at the master’s level. Sociology serves as an appropriate comparison to LIS because of its central status in the development of both qualitative and quantitative research methods and its relevance for library science. The author analyzed the curricular requirements of 109 master’s degree programs (47 sociology and 62 LIS programs) and 81 research methods syllabi (60 in sociology and 21 in LIS). The analysis of master’s in LIS (MLIS) and sociology MA curricula revealed that MLIS students took 0.6 research methods courses while sociology MA students took 2.7 methods courses. LIS programs typically required one methods course, whereas sociology MA programs required three. LIS methods courses spent on average 19% of instructional time on statistics, whereas 64% of sociology MA programs’ instruction in methods focused on statistical analysis. 86% of LIS research methods courses covered descriptive statistics and only 38% of LIS courses discussed inferential statistics. Statistical training in LIS programs remains limited. LIS departments could approach statistical training as sociology has done by teaching inferential statistics and other advanced techniques. Thereafter, information professionals can publish more widely and provide improved research support.

Purpose — The purpose of this discussion is, first, to review the concept of truth claim and how it forms the framework for four research traditions: science, social science, law, and judgments of excellence. Then, the operational mechanisms of networks are reviewed. The discussion concludes by introducing three philosophic perspectives that might deepen the meanings nascent in the concept of “search.” Methodology/approach — The methodology includes a historical approach to outline brief but sufficient definitions for how truth claims are built in four established research traditions. Each tradition is then analyzed with a view to testing its methods. The tests suggest a number of pathways to reframe search engine results in order to evaluate their relationship to the previously established types of truth claims. Findings — The findings constitute an outline of the research traditions in the four areas of science, social science, law, and judgments of excellence. These are followed by a review of the current configurations of networks, their infrastructures, and their capabilities, including a brief section on the importance of search engine mechanisms. Crawling, indexing, and then ranking form the operational mechanisms that search engines employ in delivering search results. It is clear that each operation introduces logical problems. Then, the final sections outline three widely ranging philosophic perspectives on the nature of search: (1) an aesthetic theory of indexing, (2) understanding search from the psychology of learning, and (3) an exploration of the relationship between performativity and recent economic models of how data accumulates in today's world. Research implications — It is suggested that exploration of a deeper philosophical perspective will assist library and information science (LIS) scholars to reframe Web search in ways that allow linkages to the established research traditions. Originality/value of the paper — The idea of testing the “truth claim” as connected to traditional research methods was presented initially by Rall (2002, 2004). This area has been neglected in the literature as many Internet scholars find that the philosophy of research methodologies remains outside of their knowledge base. Overall, LIS scholars have focused on information seekers, on the politics of search engines, as well as documenting the computational problems that are present in search engine results. The consideration of how truth claims are formed and subsequently tested will allow LIS researchers to explore the linkages between their current studies and the established frameworks of scholarly research.

How to Give Your Users the LIS Services They Want

This study investigated the external contributors of library and information science (LIS) knowledge who were unaffiliated with LIS-related institutions but published their research results in LIS journals. Differences between the contributors to library science (LS) and contributors to information science (IS) were considered. Articles published in 39 strongly LIS-oriented journals indexed in the Web of Science database between 2005 and 2014 were analyzed. The results demonstrated that 46.5% of the LIS articles were written by at least one non-LIS author; authors’ backgrounds ranged across 29 disciplines. An increasing trend was observed in degrees of interdisciplinarity of LS and IS. An increase in proportion of articles by LIS and non-LIS authors was identified in LS and IS as well. Those with medical backgrounds were the primary non-LIS authors contributing to the LS field and collaborated the most frequently with LIS authors. Those with computer science backgrounds were the most prevalent non-LIS contributors to the IS field and preferred to publish individually. A critical difference was also identified in research topics between LS and IS. The foundations of LIS and scientometrics were the largest research topics in LS and IS, respectively.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the reasons for the gradual extinction of reading scholarship in Library and Information Science (LIS) departments and to identify three problematic areas accounting for its dropping prestige: paradigmatic conflicts, the influence of the corporate university and low awareness of the potential of reading research. It also proposes possible solutions to each problem. Design/methodology/approach – Close reading and analysis of an extensive selection of sources with novel conceptualization and critical perspectives. Findings – The information science paradigm, which has dominated LIS, is not sufficient to accommodate reading research. The information science model has a detrimentally restrictive effect on reading scholarship. Library science, which should be considered an autonomous discipline rather than an appendix of information science, is more conducive to the study of reading. Non-specialization-based academic hiring to increase values-based diversity in LIS through a larger influx of reading scholars is advocated. Originality/value – Reading scholarship, unduly deemed “old-fashioned”, or euphemistically “traditional”, is one of the most potent areas of academic inquiry, to which LIS scholars are perfectly positioned to make a unique contribution. Reading research in LIS has great merit irrespective of its connection to information and technology; a set of evaluative questions to determine the quality of reading scholarship is introduced. Using a case study, the paper illustrates the potential of reading research for interdisciplinary connections, community partnerships and the enrichment of LIS education and professional practices. An honest look at one of the most exciting academic fields, regrettably neglected by LIS.

This chapter reports results from a study into the current state of library and information science (LIS) research in Indonesia and the major actors in the Indonesian LIS research environment. The study used a qualitative case study method. The findings show (1) a low level of LIS research activities by Indonesian academicians, library practitioners and students and (2) an emphasis on applied research into collection processes and developments, user perception and satisfaction with library services, effectiveness of libraries and information centre management and information technology. Further problems for Indonesian LIS research include the poor understanding of the relevance of LIS research, the role of LIS researchers and the conflict of values and beliefs among the actors in the Indonesian LIS environment. However, the prospects for Indonesian LIS research are improving with a growing awareness of the importance of LIS research for Indonesia. LIS research quality in Indonesia is being enhanced through formal education, research competition and journal research reports since the 2000s. Indonesian LIS actors need to learn research methodologies and cooperate with each other more intensively to improve their research skills. Recommendations for improving Indonesian LIS research include, changing the mindset of researchers to create a research climate, building research networks, improving knowledge access, changing regulations (job description, performance evaluation of system, credit points), providing more funding for LIS research and improving LIS curriculums. All Indonesian LIS actors need to communicate with each other to create acceptable values, norms and beliefs to improve Indonesian LIS research.

The present communication attempts to trace the research trends in library and information science (LIS) carried out by the researchers in Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth (TMV), department of LIS. It presents the analysis of thesis/dissertations submitted by research scholars for getting degrees of M.Phil. and Ph.D. during the academic period 2008–2018. During this period, 168 thesis/dissertations have been submitted by research scholars of M.Phil. and Ph.D and 160 have been accepted by Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune. The analysis mainly focused on the productivity of research output, subject areas represented, type of libraries covered and gender-wise analysis of the research students, etc. The research topics undertaken during the period included areas like information science, academic libraries, library management, ICT, use, user studies, etc. The research output indicates the growth in the doctoral research in LIS of this Vidyapeeth. The research data gathered has been analysed systematically and presented under different heads like chronological distribution, subject-wise analysis, guide-wise analysis and it also reflects the emerging trends/areas in the field of library and information sciences. The research findings indicate the current research trends in TMV, which covers areas like IT applications, digitization, preservation and conservation of literature, disaster management, internet resources, bibliometrics, institutional repositories, etc. This study may be useful to the research scholars and guides in planning and selecting the topics for the research in library and information science. The efforts made by the department of LIS, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth in bringing out the research environment are also traced systematically. The objective of this communication is to assess the research output of TMV, Department of LIS. Keywords : LIS research, evaluation of research studies, M.Phil. dissertations, Ph.D. Thesis, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, research analysis Cite this Article Khandare Dhanishtha S. Research Output of Department of Library and Information Science, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune. Journal of Advancements in Library Sciences. 20 20 ; 7 (20-27p).