Analisis Bibliometrik berdasarkan Dalil Zipf pada Jurnal Kajian Informasi dan Perpustakaan Universitas Padjadjaran Tahun 2020-2024

Traditionally, there have been two important media of academic publishing: scholarly journals and scholarly books. The first scholarly journal, the Journal des Sçavans, was founded by Denis de Sallo, appeared already in January 1665 in Paris, reappeared after the French Revolution as the Journal des Savants, and still exists as a leading journal in the humanities. Only a few weeks later, Henry Oldenbourg, the first secretary of the Royal Society of London, established a second scholarly journal, the Philosophical Transactions, with a focus on science. The purpose of these journals was to formalize the extensive correspondence between philosophers and scientists.1 In the 18th and the 19th century, more specialized journals gained in importance, most of which were published by learned societies. At the end of the 19th century, university presses too began to publish scholarly journals. Another traditional means of academic publishing are the various types of scholarly books, in particular monographs, edited volumes, reference works (specialist dictionaries, encyclopedias, and specialty reference manuals), and technical handbooks.2 A narrow definition of academic works would exclude textbooks and books for the broader public. Shavell (2010, 337–39) employs four criteria to determine whether a journal or book is academic in nature: (1) the authors and/or the publisher are usually academics; (2) the readers are mainly academics; (3) the content is academic in character; (4) only low royalties are paid, if any. As of today, scholarly journals are the preferred mode of academic publishing in particular in the sciences and some social sciences (e.g., economics), whereas scholarly books still play an important role in the arts, the humanities, and part of the social sciences. Whereas scholarly books are published by a large number of small national publishers in a multitude of languages, the most important scholarly journals are typically in English language and published by a few large commercial publishers. Until the mid-20th century, the most important journals were published by learned societies, before commercial publishers began to enter the academic publishing market in the 1960s and 1970s by launching new titles or acquiring existing ones. This development has led to a significant concentration of (commercial) publishers in the academic journal market.3 It is difficult to say for sure how many scholarly journals are available around the world. Some sources speak of more than 100,000, others of 87,000 or 73,000.4 In August 2018, Ulrich's Web Directory listed 33,119 active scholarly peer-reviewed English-language journals with about 3 million articles a year, complemented by an additional 9,372 journals in other languages. As an important subset, 11,655 journals with 2.2 million articles were included in the Clarivate Analytics' Journal Citation Reports (STM, 2018, 25–26). The Web of Science (WoS) database counted almost 12,500 journals in 2019 (see below, Section 2.2.1). With the mass expansion of academic education and the increasing size of faculty after World War II, publications in peer-reviewed, highly ranked journals have become an important precondition for academic careers in many disciplines, in particular in the sciences, economics, and partly in the other social sciences. In 1964, Eugene Garfield launched the Science Citation Index to calculate the impact factors of journals in science, medicine, and technology. This index was later followed by the Social Sciences Citation Index in 1973, the Arts & Humanities Citation Index in 1978 (Regazzi, 2015, 86–88), and the Emerging Sources Citation Index in 2015. These indices led to the development of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), a metric that serves to rank a scholarly journal based on the number of citations to articles in that journal by articles in other indexed journals within a certain time period. During the same time, commercial publishers have increased their market shares to the detriment of non-for-profit publishers, such as learned societies and universities, becoming the dominant players in the market for scholarly journals. Today, the "big five" commercial academic publishers—Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Sage—cover more than half of the market for scholarly journals. Since the 1980s, we have seen a sharp increase not just in the number of journals but in particular also in journal subscription prices, forcing many academic libraries to cancel serials subscriptions and to cut back on new monographs (the so-called serials crisis, cf. Eger & Scheufen, 2018, 23–29). These developments induced an increasing number of scholars, initially in the United States, to promote open access (OA) to scholarly articles as a replacement of or an addendum to the subscription model. After some individual initiatives in the late 1980s, the early 2000s saw the emergence of a global movement by scholars, librarians, and research sponsors, resulting in the "Budapest Open Access Initiative" (February 2002), the "Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing" (June 2003) and the "Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities" (October 2003).7 Two roads to OA can be distinguished8: First, gold OA refers to electronic journals with OA for all readers, often based on creative commons licenses. The publishers' costs are covered not by subscription fees but from other sources, such as article-processing charges (APCs)9 paid by authors, libraries, learned societies, or research sponsors, or subsidies from learned societies and other sources. Hybrid OA journals, whose numbers are rising fast, allow the authors to choose between paying an APC, thereby granting the reader OA, or not paying an APC and requiring the reader to pay for access to the article.10 A special branch of gold OA is mega-journals, the first one of which, PLOS One, was first published in 2006. In these journals, the peer review is restricted to examining only the soundness of the submitted articles but not their broader interest or impact. Also, mega-journals are not oriented towards a specific subject matter. The second road, green OA, refers to authors self-archiving pre-prints or post-prints of their papers on so-called OA repositories, potentially in addition to publication in traditional subscription-based journals. OpenDOAR listed 5,713 repositories in July 2021, of which 5,073 were classified as institutional repositories managed by universities, faculties, or other academic institutions, 364 as disciplinary (subject) repositories which aggregate research papers in specific disciplines (e.g., PubMed Central, arXiv, SSRN, and RepEc), 138 as aggregating repositories (including Academia and Scielo), and 139 as governmental repositories.11 Whereas institutional and disciplinary repositories generally respect the authors' or publishers' copyright, so-called Robin Hood or Pirate OA repositories do not. The most prominent example is Sci-Hub, founded in 2011 by Alexandra Elbakyan, a young scholar from Kazakhstan, which made over 60 million journal articles publicly available. Due to complaints by academic publishers, Sci-Hub had to switch domains several times.12 Recent years have seen the emergence of academic social networks such as Research Gate and Mendeley, as well as a stream of new forms of disseminating scientific content, including blogs, podcasts, and Facebook posts by prominent scholars. Regarding OA books, the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) in June 2021 listed 43,036 academic peer-reviewed books from 621 publishers.13 The number of academic journals, as listed in the WoS database, has been growing steadily over the past two decades, from around 5,000 in 2000 to almost 12,500 in 2019 (Figure 1).14 Source: Author's calculations based on data from Web of Science (2021) The academic journal market is dominated by a few large commercial publishers, with the "big five" accounting for more than half of the academic journals listed by the WoS in 2019: Elsevier (1,754 journals), Springer (1,406), Wiley Blackwell (1,242), Taylor & Francis (1,199), and Sage (642).15 However, due to a downturn by Elsevier that began around 2006, this dominance has declined from around 60% in 2000 to around 51.7% in 2019 (Figure 2). Source: Author's calculations based on data from Web of Science (2021) Coupled with the advent of the internet and the concurrent increasing digitization of academic works, which through the bundling of different journals and/or formats ("big deals") facilitated second-degree price discrimination, this dominance has led to a drastic increase in subscription prices since the early 1990s (Bergstrom, 2013; Eger & Scheufen, 2018; Ramello, 2010). The resulting serials crisis—with academic libraries having to cut their journal portfolio—gave rise to a new publishing regime that offers OA to journal content. The share of pure (i.e., non-hybrid) OA journals as listed by the Directory of Open Access Journals (2021) has been increasing steadily, from around 3% of all WoS-listed journals in 2000 to more than 10% in 2019 (Figure 3). Source: Author's calculations based on data from Web of Science (2021) and DOAJ (2021) Interestingly, pure OA journals also gained ground in terms of quality. Figure 4 shows boxplots of the impact factors16 of closed access (CA) versus OA journals over time. While CA journals enjoyed an impact factor advantage over OA journals for a long time—all location scales of the impact factor for CA journals being above the ones for OA journals—OA journals are nowadays of the same quality, notwithstanding considerable differences between disciplines (see the contribution by Eger et al. to this issue). In 2019, impact factor distributions of both OA and CA journals are at the same level. Thus, advancing both in quantity and in quality, OA journals are becoming ever more relevant. The literature has identified the following advantages of an OA regime for academic works: (1) OA publications are likely read and therefore (2) cited more widely,17 which in turn (3) raises the incentives for academic authors to publish their research results as citations increase their reputation. These observations led to a broad discussion in academia as to whether the copyright regime may impede the evolution towards a universal OA regime, with very different conclusions being drawn regarding the impact of OA from a social welfare perspective (Scheufen, 2015; Shavell, 2010). Source: Author's calculations based on data from Web of Science (2021) and DOAJ (2021) The growing relevance of academic OA publishing warrants a closer look at the development of pure OA journals as the gold road towards OA. Figure 5 shows the number of newly launched OA journals from 2002 to 2020. Following relatively slow growth from 2002 to 2014, with fewer than 500 new OA journals per year (except 2013), the number has exceeded 1,000 in every year since, peaking in 2017, when more than 2,000 new OA journals were added to the DOAJ database. Today, the DOAJ database counts more than 16,000 OA journals in many different fields of research, published in 80 languages by publishers from 126 countries.18 Source: Author's calculations based on data from DOAJ (2021) Notwithstanding this impressive development, the relevance of OA journals varies substantially across academic disciplines (Figure 6).19 The research field with the largest attributed number of OA journals is Social Sciences (3,817), followed by Health Sciences (2,785), Technology and Engineering (1,416), and Language and Literature (1,153). By contrast, the natural science fields of Mathematics & Statistics (341), Physics & Astronomy (274), and Chemistry (181) feature only few OA journals.20 Source: Author's calculations based on data from DOAJ (2021) Remarkable differences also exist regarding a variety of OA journal characteristics (Table 1).21 Most (52%) OA journals leave the copyright of published works with the author, whereas the traditional CA regime demands that the exploitation rights are transferred to the publisher. Moreover, only around 28% of all OA journals charge APCs—a remarkable finding, as the OA regime implies the transition from a "reader pays" to an "author pays" model. Other fees (e.g., a submission fee to cover the review process) are charged by only around 2% of all OA journals. Nevertheless, author fees may constitute a significant obstacle for authors to publish in an OA venue, especially for non-tenured researchers seeking to publish in highly ranked journals, which are most likely to charge APCs (Budzinski et al., 2020). This obstacle also applies in particular to many researchers from developing countries, whose institutions rarely cover such costs. Yet 18% of OA journals provide for the possibility to waive such author fees. OA publishing may indeed be considered a form of development aid, for two reasons: First, few institutions in the developing world have so far been able to subscribe to academic journals. The OA regime can thus promote scientific participation and thereby foster the global evolution of science as a "trial and error" process. Free or cheaper access to literature for researchers in the developing world tends to increase both their output (number of publications) and input (number of references) (Mueller-Langer et al., 2020). Second, an OA regime grants access to the latest results in science for groups who were previously excluded because they are not "club" members of a university library. This includes, e.g., corporate researchers, physicians, or farmers. Notwithstanding all the changes discussed above, scholarly journals remain the most important medium of communication in many disciplines. For more than 300 years, they have been fulfilling the four key functions of registration (attribution), certification of articles (peer review), dissemination (distribution, access), and preservation (scholarly memory and permanent archiving). In recent decades, a fifth function must be added: the evaluation of researchers and their institutions.22 The increasing importance of OA articles in scholarly journals has triggered some controversial discussions, in particular regarding the questions as to whether OA negatively affects the quality of journal articles, whether OA improves the dissemination of research results, and how OA affects the competition between academic publishers as well as the distribution between academics and non-academics, between poor and rich universities, and between poor and rich countries. We shall discuss each of these questions and some related points in more detail below. In times when "alternative facts" tend to trump sound research results, academia must provide the public with reliable information. The users of this information should be sufficiently certain that the results are based on proper methods, reflect the state of science in the specific field, and were obtained independently, e.g., of any political or commercial interests.23 For that reason, strict and continuous quality control of research results is a "conditio sine qua non" for academic publishing. Facilitating the communication of content from authors to readers, the academic journal market may be characterized as a two-sided market (Rochet & Tirole, 2003). While readers look for the most important research results in their fields by top authors, the latter are interested in the journal's reputation, in wide readership, and in citations. Thus, journals with high impact factors hold the greatest attraction to both sides. With this in mind, the crucial question arises what effect, if any, OA is likely to have on the quality of academic articles. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, is very skeptical regarding the quality of OA articles, especially those that are financed by APCs: "By adding a financial component to the front end of the scholarly publishing process, the open-access movement will ultimately corrupt scholarly publishing and hurt the communication and sharing of novel knowledge" (Beall, 2013, 590). A weak form of "corruption" would to OA publishers' incentives to peer review and to more submitted papers in to increase from However, the commercial publishers' incentives to increase the number of articles to the detriment of the journal's quality at the the quality the APCs that the journal is able to as well as A form of "corruption" refers to the of some OA journal publishers have been to in particular young and who on publications for their or to allow authors to publish articles in OA journals, by articles with or peer academics on their the or of journals, and so In established a of publishers, which was in January in to not only from the publishers but also from OA who that the to to OA. this quality to be a one which exists only in some disciplines (e.g., economics), whereas in other disciplines, such as some OA journals are the ranked journals and there is of a quality researchers their and if academic institutions and research to the APCs for articles by journals, this is to A by is that OA may new and will new and of their will remain (Beall, 2013, 590). However, this is a of the process, of whether the was submitted to a traditional or an OA and many prominent which that articles are generally more likely to the review than and creative but ones. In their contribution to this special & in a two-sided that OA can be a feature of journals. The have seen an increasing both of data on any subject and of that serves to that data almost there has been a of articles in every For such articles, the peer for quality A can be made between pure the same data and the same are as in the and scientific which (1) different data but the same (2) the same data but new methods, or (3) new data and new A to a on (1) the of an or in previously published (2) the impact of the (3) the of and (4) the of to publish Whereas some years when data were on the of mainly of technical copyright and data are the of Regarding the first journals in have already been including an OA journal by University with a focus on Technology and and the Journal for in by Springer the years or a number of in several disciplines have that the results of many when published in highly ranked journals, not be many academics to speak of a The is to the quality of research by access to data so as to be able to results of and or the incentives to the in the first Another important question is whether digitization and the internet have facilitated the quality of of their scholarly and and of their the quality of academic researchers and of is based on which were to provide a metric for journals with each 2019, being a of the citations to all articles in a journal but not of the citations to the individual articles. In a few articles are cited and many articles are not cited at Moreover, an may also many citations for being and citations are 2018, For some journals the authors of submitted papers to related papers that were previously published in the same journal have this by the of several journals this focus on and their to their and the of to these and to with for the quality of research & in with a a to be a (STM, 2018, are induced to the but the The on research which from the on Science and Technology in 2014, is of the existing to research output and to research evaluation in the et al., the question whether the new and the and (OA) of academic publishing to and their Some authors the in OA publishing with a broader of readers and open For of the in the focus on a small number of highly ranked journals, for a all articles that a journal's criteria should be published and made financed by APCs or other This is the of mega-journals such as PLOS a who the 2000 in and & the between of publications in the top journals in and of in a of the top which over the the crucial question is how to articles at low especially in a OA the of available articles to choose journal of costs to some However, the of the as a of quality has been Thus, an important to academic publishing is to provide reliable on the quality of journal articles that are of the journal that published the the internet and for research evaluation also how research results are Regarding scholarly by other researchers, there is an discussion as to whether OA articles more or fewer citations than those with a to that is in the by & and by Eger et al. to this special Regarding by the broader the mainly is being complemented with which on or in the social reference such as and Mendeley, scholarly blogs, and In the transition from traditional subscription journals to OA, the crucial question is how to the between two the one high subscription fees may be with high journal publishers have to their to the or research the other low APCs may not for publishers to cover their and to a to publish journals. The is to competition to journal publishers to articles of quality at and and to the interested public. The of competition not on the and of OA publishing. there were only pure OA journals, publishers would for all authors had to cover the APCs from their the APCs would tend towards a that the publishers to However, in the publishers of pure OA journals, OA journals and CA journals with OA repositories, and APCs may be by or research these different to foster OA will have specific on the of are some (1) green OA is or an to as has been the in since January 2014, publishers of subscription journals difficult to increase their fees. This also the publishers of OA journals from increasing their In any a must be is too will the publishers' to publish the journal in the first if is too the on subscription fees will be A for gold OA by research the of the publishers of OA journals and thereby increase (2) the of new OA journals, this foster competition publishers of OA journals for Yet this the that many years to a and to Until the new journal will have on the fees of the journals. (3) of academic libraries can constitute a to the journal publishers, potentially the of example is the in which so far two between a of most academic libraries in on the one and Wiley and Springer as publishers of scholarly journals in all disciplines on the other is a controversial discussion whether such impede competition on the journal market to the detriment of small publishers or indeed In any such to promote the of traditional CA journals OA OA publishing may several and the from "reader pays" to "author pays" can for researchers, for in developing countries. As we have 18% of OA journals APC for such Second, or to foster OA, such as the above, may to the of researchers who to the detriment of those who do not. Moreover, publishers may be to papers from researchers from that author fees specific e.g., by authors an of gold and/or green OA may due to that from incentives such as the in science or especially for non-tenured researchers, gold OA may their careers in fields OA with and CA example for due to may be the e.g., in the field of In this a green OA publication may with a publication of a in a journal since the that a journal works that have been published In the transition to OA journals implies that authors or their pay for the of readers from all over the world to access the articles. This may be poor authors for rich the global that is available to academic articles is in which the transition to OA may the number of articles The is when many of the readers are of we can that whose faculty publish many articles also for a large share of the readership, in which any between authors and readers their as a of the transition to OA should be A number of and developments since the second half of the have the academic publishing market and triggered about the very of academic publishing. journals, which in most disciplines to be the most important medium of academic are by commercial publishers, with the top publishers more than of all journals. and the advent of the internet have these publishers to in "big with academic libraries, of which the libraries to access a wide of journals at a price per As a journal subscription prices and academic on academic journals have been increasing to the detriment of publishers and on books with these a number of national and initiatives triggered the development towards OA, a new of academic publishing. Today, a growing number of pure and OA journals are financed by subscription fees but by publication fees paid by the authors or their Moreover, institutional and disciplinary OA repositories have been established and the traditional of academic communication have been with social blogs, Another of digitization and the internet has been the facilitated and of research in many disciplines. The of this development is an increasing number of the results of be this would with copyright and and academic authors to in The discussion as to how these developments the quality control of academic journal articles, the evaluation of and their institutions, and the size and of financial means for academic publishing. This special to the discussion a of articles with some of including the evaluation of by indices & welfare of open access & the impact of OA & & access to research data & to OA in and the to OA in & We would to for The authors also open access by

<i>Epilepsia</i> and the rough seas of medical publishing

Approaches to the concepts of exhaustivity and specificity in ISKO International meeting proceedings: 2000-2017

Within LIS education, information organization (IO) and information retrieval (IR) are two well-established, foundational, and conceptually interlinked areas of study. They have long maintained a strong presence in the core curriculum, through either dedicated or combined courses. Recent trends in LIS education have seen a greater reliance on a smaller, more condensed core, raising questions about the presence, role, and format of these foundational topics. This study aims to provide a clearer picture of how IO and IR currently manifest in the LIS core, along with which particular IO and IR topics are most prevalent. Through content analysis, course syllabi for 58 IO and/or IR related courses from 38 different, ALA-accredited LIS programs were examined. Course descriptions and schedules of topics were assessed using the ISO 5127 controlled vocabulary as an analytical framework. Findings revealed three main course types: IO dedicated courses, IR-related courses typically in the context of reference services, and combined courses that often presented IO and IR alongside other fundamental topics. Though dedicated courses showed little leveraging of topics from the other areas, combined courses leveraged topics from both IO and IR. Among all courses, the prevalence of the topics of access, classification, databases, and metadata suggests a common area of crossover among IO and IR. Overall, findings point toward greater diffusion of IO and IR content throughout the core curriculum while demonstrating the continuing relevance of these areas.

With an increasing interest in RDM services in libraries and information organizations, research on RDM has evolved dramatically in recent years. This study aims to investigate how RDM research evolves globally and to provide an understanding of how RDM research differs by countries. Through bibliometrics approaches, this study analyzes a large set of RDM research publications to provide a comprehensive landscape of the RDM research field. The findings from the examination of 403 articles extracted from the Web of Science database successfully demonstrate the global trends of RDM research, showing how RDM research has spread from North American and European countries to Asian and African countries. The analysis of RDM research topics from the three top publishing countries—Germany, USA and the UK—reveals that different countries focus on different topics and that research topics change along with other factors, such as the adoption of a standard. The bibliometrics analysis on the topic trends show that there were five major research topics which are identified as the fundamentals and practices of library services, and the research data sharing topics. There was a clear distinction of the interests in RDM research until 2018 and after 2019. The findings show that the distinction was impacted by the new appearance of the FAIR Guiding Principles in 2016. The findings of the study successfully identify major trends in RDM research topics and different trends by countries based on their interests and circumstances. From these findings, researchers and library professionals in RDM services can gain a good understanding of current interests in RDM services and identify needs from these research trends to improve their services.

The aim of this study is to identify research directions focused on epidural hematoma (EDHs) from past to present using bibliometric approaches, uncover current research trends through keyword analyses, delineate global productivity, and identify impactful studies through citation analyses. The study obtained 1785 articles related to EDH published between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2023, from the Web of Science database, and comprehensive analyses were conducted using various bibliometric and statistical approaches. These analyses include citation and co-citation analyses, trend keyword analysis, multiple correspondence analysis, thematic evolution analysis, and various other bibliometric analyses. The bibliometric analyses were performed using Biblioshiny and VOSviewer. The top 3 journals contributing the most to the literature were Acta Neurochirurgica (n = 56, 3.1%), British Journal of Neurosurgery (48, 2.6%), and Neurosurgery (47, 2.6%). According to the h-index, the most influential top 3 journals were Neurosurgery (h = 27), Acta Neurochirurgica (h = 23), and Surgical Neurology (h = 21). Based on the m-index, the most influential top 3 journals were World Neurosurgery (m = 0.9), Medicine (m = 0.63), and Neurosurgery (m = 0.6). The most active country was the United States of America (n = 593), the most active author was Mahapatra AK (n = 10), and the most active institution was Harvard University (n = 25). Research interest in EDH has evolved over time, with notable increases in publication trends in 1968, 1982, and 1988, peaking in 1996 and 2004. Bibliometric analyses indicate that key topics such as spinal EDH, head injuries, magnetic resonance imaging, spontaneous spinal EDH, computed tomography, spine, complications, epidural, anticoagulants, pediatric cases, and trauma have stood out in EDH research. Trend analysis findings have shown an increasing focus on specific areas such as clinical management approaches, treatment methods, postoperative complications, risk factors, pediatric cases, as well as specific conditions like paralysis and cauda equina syndrome. Multiple correspondence analysis identified 6 core research dimensions, focusing on acute trauma management, surgical interventions, complications management, risk assessment, surgical outcomes, and incidence analysis.

Paul Valentine, 1951–2011

Introduction:The effective performance of an Information Retrieval System depends on the quality with which the organization of information is performed, which will imply a retrieval of the most relevant and pertinent information, since these procedures are conditioned to each other, creating a bridge between input and output of information. Objective:To evaluate the impact of the exhaustiveness and specificity variables and the recall and precision measures, as well as the concepts of relevance and pertinence, in Information Retrieval Systems. Methodology:It is characterized as a descriptive and exploratory study, based on a narrative literature review aiming to present the different concepts, their converging and divergent points. Results:As a contribution, we present a proposal for a flow for an Information Storage and Retrieval System, centered on the user, bringing together several aspects related to measures of recall and precision, of relevance and pertinence.Conclusion:It is considered as the final contribution of this study to highlight the importance of a systemic view, in which all elements of an Information Storage and Retrieval System are in interrelation, having the user as the main element; and present the fundamental activities that are important for the training of professionals able to build consistent Systems.

This study examines the evolution and emerging trends in consumer behavior by integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI), digital marketing, and consumer buying behavior through bibliometric analysis. Using data from the Web of Science (2014–2023), 645 articles were analyzed to identify publication trends, key themes, and leading contributors. Bibliometric indicators, including citation counts and keyword analysis, were visualized using VOSviewer. The analysis revealed six keyword clusters, highlighting key areas such as AI-driven data analytics, customer experience, and conversational AI. The findings provide valuable insights into how AI and digital marketing influence consumer behavior, offering directions for future research. The conclusion synthesizes the key findings and outlines potential research avenues at the intersection of AI, digital marketing, and consumer behavior. This study contributes to the field by providing a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, identifying major trends, influential authors, contributing countries, and dominant themes while suggesting areas for further exploration.

A Review of: &#x0D; Borrego, Á., &amp; Anglada, L. (2016). Faculty information behaviour in the electronic environment: Attitudes towards searching, publishing and libraries. New Library World, 117(3/4): 173-185. doi:10.1108/NLW-11-2015-0089&#x0D; &#x0D; Objective – To determine faculty’s information behaviour and their perception of academic libraries in the current transition between print and electronic scholarly communication.&#x0D; &#x0D; Design – Online survey.&#x0D; &#x0D; Setting – A consortium of 12 large universities in Spain.&#x0D; &#x0D; Subjects – More than 17,380 faculty members.&#x0D; &#x0D; Methods – The researchers used a questionnaire based on a subset of the questionnaire used for the Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey, with 20 closed and 2 open-ended questions. The survey was implemented via Google Forms and sent through mailing lists. The number of recipients was not known, but university statistics for 11 of the 12 universities list 17,380 faculty (statistics were not available for one university, located in a different administrative area). The questions aimed to identify the types of documents used by scholars for teaching and research, the search tools used, the strategies used to keep up-to-date in their disciplines, preferences for print or electronic books, the sources used to access documents, their preferred channels to disseminate their own research, and their views regarding library services.&#x0D; &#x0D; Main Results – The response rate was 12.7%. Based on the results, scholarly journals were the most used information resource for research across all academic disciplines, with 94% of respondents rating them as important. For teaching, faculty preferred to use textbooks for undergraduates, and journal articles for Master’s students. To search the literature, faculty chose bibliographic databases and Internet search engines over the library catalog and physical collections, although the catalog was the first choice for known-item searches. Respondents favored print to read entire books or chapters but preferred the electronic format for skimming. Of the respondents, 78% rated the library as an important channel to access resources, while 61% also considered free online materials important. If the material was not available at their library, 71% frequently chose to search for a free online version and 42% used the inter-library loan service. For their own research, faculty have published in scholarly journals more often than other channels and have selected the journal based on its impact factor (77.5% ranked it as important) and on its area of coverage (73.4%). When asked to rank library services, faculty placed paying for resources highest, with 86.2% identifying it as important. Next were facilitating teaching and helping students develop information literacy skills. Finally, a majority of faculty considered themselves highly dependent on the library.&#x0D; &#x0D; Conclusion – Journal articles are the most widely used information resource for research and teaching purposes, regardless of discipline. This includes arts and humanities, which are known for heavy monograph usage. Articles are also scholars’ preferred channel for publishing. With regards to books, faculty have mixed feelings about print and electronic formats. Spanish faculty display information behaviours similar to their British and American counterparts, as documented in the Ithaka S+R 2012 surveys. Blogs and social networks are not widely used in spite of growing attention to such channels for research output and altmetrics. Open access is also relatively unimportant for faculty when they choose where to publish. A majority of respondents still consider library services as important, for collections as well as teaching and learning support, which may present opportunities for librarians.

The advent of website which is also referred to as “web portal” is one of the greatest revolution in the world of providing and promoting library and information resources and services. Today, accessibility to information and information retrieval as a result of websites as helped libraries and information centers to effectively render quality library services to their customers. Web portal has great advantages in information generation, processing and accessibility to information on demand. Users have the advantage of visiting websites to obtain readily available information via internet. Therefore, this paper attempt to discuss the concept of web portal as an emerging technology that could help to facilitate the storing and retrieval of information and its services particularly as it affect the modern flow and management of information in the 21st century. The concepts of library service were also highlighted as that phase of library work that assists library users with relevant information through the use of library resources. The applications of the technology within Nigeria context were discussed as well as factors that could pose are posing threat to its management in library services to library users. Finally, recommendations were proffered as solutions for the use of web technology within the context of library and information services. DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n10p37

Communications

Visualizing and mapping the intellectual structure of information retrieval

Information Organization and the Mysterious Information User Francis Miksa (bio) For the whole of the last four hundred years—the modern period—those in the chief expressions of what we might call the information service professions—bibliography, librarianship, indexing, documentation, computerized information storage and retrieval, archives, records management, and museum work—have made it their business to aggregate informational objects (or their surrogate descriptions) in such a way as to help people (information users) identify, gain access to, and interact with them. These actions have led to the creation of systems organizing both discrete informational objects and portions (often even snippets) of the objects. During my career I have studied and written about many such systems. My method had been to focus especially on how essential concept words and terms (e.g., "information users") have been used (i.e., to what did they refer, what roles have they played) and how their uses and what they referred to have changed over time. This led me in the early 1980s to investigate the sources of particular ideas in Charles Cutter's subject access work and in the work of those who followed him in incorporating subject heading systems in the dictionary catalog.1 Afterward, I applied the same methods to the idea of "classification" across several fields, to the idea of "library and information science," and to "information organization" as a general concept.2 During the same period I had many occasions of considering the concepts of information users and use, the natural complement of information systems themselves, but I have not written extensively about them.3 Thinking through such concepts immediately brings one face to face with many heady questions. For example, how might we characterize information users and the use or uses to which informational objects might be put by those people? How have these people been characterized and described in the past and present, and under what circumstances have they been characterized in one way or another? [End Page 343] When, for example, did the practice arise of calling them "information users" and their interaction with the information objects "information use"? What broader social and cultural phenomena can be correlated with the conceptualizations, and what tentative conclusions can one draw from what is discovered? The purpose of this essay is to bring together my thoughts on information users and use. These will be presented chiefly in the form of a historical survey of how reference to information users (and, by implication, information use) has changed over the modern period in history (beginning at about A.D. 1500) and up to the present. Before attempting to address such characterizations I will comment on both the timeframe involved and the words of my title. Afterward I will summarize what I have covered and provide some broader suggestions about the matter. Preliminary Comments It has become a commonplace opinion recently that consideration of information users and use not only is relatively recent but also is the cause of creating two main subfields in the information studies field that, according to some, represent a fundamental split in the field. Tefco Saracevic, for example, in a series of writings that began in 1991, concludes that our field has come to have two primary focal points or subdisciplines, one focused on information system making, the other on information users and use. He claims that the systems emphasis, under the name "information retrieval," was the original center of the field, that it began with Vannevar Bush's article in 1945 entitled "As We May Think," and that it is the most robust portion of the field. He identifies the 1970s and 1980s as the time in which user studies began. Claiming support from White and McCain's 1998 cocitation analysis of the 120 most cited authors of the field, he concludes that these two elements of the field barely overlap or communicate with each other (much to their respective losses), and if someone were to find a way to unite them, he or she would, so to speak, go down in history as a hero.4 Douglas Raber, in contrast, finds the two realms so different in their views of the underlying phenomenon of information...

The widespread utility of cognitive training has gained its value in maintaining cognitive performance, reducing neuropsychiatric illnesses, restoring their abilities, and preventing cognitive decline. The objective of this article is to explore the global trends in cognitive training studies. Publication records were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) core collection for the period of 25 years from 1996 to 2020. CiteSpace 5.7.R5 (64-bit) W version software was used for mapping and bibliometric analysis. Overall, 4,575 records were retrieved and analyzed using bibliometric approaches such as dual-overlay analysis, author co-citation analysis (ACA), document co-citation analysis (DCA), and keyword analysis. It was found that the publication records were increased steadily in the recent five years (2016-2020). The US academic institutions and journals played the dominant role in the field of cognitive training. However, University College London (UCL) had contributed for the highest publication records (128) with a centrality value of 0.12. Few studies were contributed by the developing countries/territories. Author Spector, A had the highest number of publications (47). However, Author Simons, DT as the top-author based on citation burst value (35.15) focused on brain-training interventions. Through the DCA, it was found that working memory training has to be the predominant trend in this domain. The most recent burst keywords such as ‘cognitive intervention,’ ‘plasticity,’ ‘group cognitive intervention,’ ‘virtual reality,’ and ‘prevention’ were considered to be the indicators of emerging trends.