Library And Information Science Authors Research Articles

Library and information science research in the Arab World: a bibliometric analysis 1951–2021

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the research productivity of library and information science (LIS) authors affiliated with the 22 countries of the Arab League. It also identifies the top countries, organizations, authors, journals, natures of collaboration, and frequently used keywords in LIS research in the Arab world.Design/methodology/approachBibliometric methods were used to evaluate the research performance of the authors affiliated with library organizations in the Arab region. The Elsevier Scopus database was selected for data retrieval. A comprehensive search strategy was adopted to retrieve 863 publications contributed by LIS authors affiliated with the Arab countries. VOS viewer, Biblioshiny, BiblioAnalyitics, Microsoft Access and Microsoft Excel were used for data visualization and analysis.FindingsThis paper presents the dynamics and the state of the LIS research in the Arab region published between 1951 and 2021. The results of the study have highlighted an upward trend in the growth of the publications, especially in the past four years. The largest number of studies were published in the year 2020. The country-wise analysis ranked Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as the top LIS research producing countries with five and four researchers, respectively. The Kuwait University, the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals and the Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University were the three most productive organizations. Academic libraries, social media, bibliometrics, information-seeking behavior, information literacy and knowledge management were identified as the major areas of interest for the researchers. Internet and open access were topics that had gained recent popularity, while the digital library, research data management, green librarianship, link data, cloud computing, library leadership, library automation and artificial intelligence were identified as areas requiring further attention. Furthermore, the single-author pattern was found to be the most preferred pattern.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study would help prospective researchers in choosing the neglected areas of research that require further investigation. They would also help policymakers in identifying factors that need more attention and allocation of research funds.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first comprehensive bibliometric study that presents a holistic picture of the LIS research in the Arab region.

Scholarly research in Library and Information Science: an analysis based on ISI Web of Science

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a quantitative analysis of the Library and Information Science (LIS) scholarly literature published worldwide. Design/methodology/approach The ISI Web of Science database was used as a source for extracting the data of published documents during the period 2003–2017. The analysis of the published literature was based on the following indicators: research productivity of each county, annual publications, annual citations, highly cited articles, highly cited LIS journals, most productive institutions in the field of LIS and most prolific authors. The types of documents included in this study were research articles, conference proceeding papers, book reviews and editorials. Findings The findings revealed that the USA had the highest overall output of LIS scholarly publications. The year 2016 was identified as the most productive year for the number of publications, whereas 2017 was identified as the most productive year for the number of citations. “Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar” was the most highly cited article. The Journal of Medical Library Association was the most highly cited journal in LIS. Indiana University from the USA was the most productive LIS research institution. Mike Thelwall, from the UK, is identified as the most prolific author in LIS. Originality/value The study will be of interest for those researchers, who intend to conduct bibliometric research studies in LIS.

Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?

This study measured the proportion of articles by authors affiliated with library and information science (LIS)-related institutions and proportion of LIS authors in each journal using 3224 articles published in 75 journals in 2015 in the category of information science and library science as assigned by journal citation reports (JCR). Only 33.3% of journals published over half of their articles by LIS authors. Over half of authors affiliated with LIS institutions were identified in only 30.7% of journals. Library science-oriented journals had higher percentages of LIS authors and articles by LIS authors, followed by information science-oriented journals. Not all typical LIS journals were primarily contributed to by LIS authors. Additionally, 30 journals with a weak association to LIS research substantially explained the findings and tended to have higher impact factors. Lower ranks of typical LIS journals affect research rewards for LIS researchers when JCR impact factors are emphasized.

How collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa: A bibliometric study of LIS research from 1996 to 2015

This study investigated if collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa. Library and Information Science (LIS) publication record of the 54 African countries was collected from the Web of Science. Five types of collaborations were analyzed; no, institutional, national, African and international collaborations. The result shows that only 4.43% of the research by LIS authors from Africa were funded while only 8.16% were published in Africa. The study further shows that the visibility of the articles was low as they attracted 0.67 citation per year. Single author papers declined by the year, while collaboration increased. Institutional collaboration was the most popular while intra-Africa collaboration was the least popular. Furthermore, articles that were funded, published outside Africa, and from intra-African and international collaborations were more cited. International collaborations where LIS authors from Africa were lead authors attracted less citations. The observable differences in citations received by different funding status, collaboration types, publication place and authors’ role were statistically significant. Though higher visibility and funding through international collaboration as revealed in this study is a positive incentive for authors from Africa to participate in international collaboration, it is important to also improve intra-African collaboration. Through strong intra-African collaboration networks, innovative research could be driven to solve some of the problems facing Africa. It was also recommended that structures that will promote intra-African and international collaboration should be provided with funding opportunities.

Information Transfer in Articles About Libraries and Student Success

Connecting academic libraries to the higher education environment is crucial for demonstrating the impact of libraries on student success. The purpose of this study is to examine the information transfer between the disciplines of library and information science (LIS) and higher education in order to evaluate the influence of ideas between the two disciplines. Information transfer was analyzed in 39 articles focused on the library's contributions to student success by examining the cited references, the author and collaborator affiliations, and the forward citations. The findings from the cited reference analysis suggest that LIS is borrowing concepts and methods through citations from the discipline of education. Authorship affiliations showed that some non-LIS authors are publishing in the field of LIS and that LIS authors are collaborating with non-LIS authors. Finally, based on the forward citations, other disciplines are rarely citing LIS research about student success. This article's findings highlight the need to consider research and collaborators outside of the LIS field when researching the library's contribution to student success.

Foreign Authorship Pattern in Selected Library and Information Science Journals of India


 
 
 Foreign authorship pattern to three leading Indian library and information science (LIS) journals during 2008 to 2017 has been examined to identify the acceptability and popularity of Indian LIS journals among foreign authors. The present study investigates the authorship pattern in terms of different aspects like journals, years, collaborations, prolific authors, countries, research areas, cited papers and citations. It is found that in last 10 year the three LIS journals publish total 186 foreign authored article having total 1267 citation and two-authored papers are predominant. Besides, the authors from Nigeria share maximum articles followed by USA. It is recommended that the Indian LIS authors need to emphasis more on international collaboration to output more foreign authored contributions in national level journals to enrich journals literature.
 
 

Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors

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.

Exploring the interdisciplinary characteristics of library and information science (LIS) from the perspective of interdisciplinary LIS authors

This bibliometric analysis explores the interdisciplinary characteristics of library and information science (LIS) from the perspective of interdisciplinary LIS authors. Articles published in non-LIS journals by LIS authors between 2005 and 2014 and indexed by the Web of Science database formed the basis for analysis. The results showed that interdisciplinary LIS authors published articles in numerous disciplines; a largest number of articles were found in medical and music journals. Over half of the articles published by these authors were not LIS-related and were primarily singly-authored articles and articles coauthored by LIS and non-LIS authors. Most articles coauthored by only LIS authors involved LIS-related topics. Interdisciplinary LIS authors preferred to publish by themselves. The majority of interdisciplinary authors were academic librarians. Interdisciplinary LIS authors most frequently collaborated with other LIS authors, followed by authors from the field of medicine. Although interdisciplinary LIS authors are a minority, they are active in expanding the visibility of LIS.

LIS Practitioner-focused Research Trends Toward Open Access Journals, Academic-focused Research Toward Traditional Journals

A Review of:
 Chang, Y-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002
 
 Abstract 
 Objective – To examine the occupational characteristics and publication habits of library and information science (LIS) authors regarding traditional journals and open access journals.
 Design – Content analysis.
 Setting – English language research articles published in open access (OA) journals and non-open access (non-OA) journals from 2008 to 2013 that are indexed in LIS databases.
 Subjects – The authorship characteristics for 3,472 peer-reviewed articles.
 Methods – This researcher identified 33 total journals meeting the inclusion criteria by using the LIS categories within 2012 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find 13 appropriate non-OA journals, and within the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify 20 appropriate OA journals. They found 1,665 articles by 3,186 authors published in the non-OA journals, and another 1,807 articles by 3,446 authors within the OA journals.
 The researcher used author affiliation to determine article authors’ occupations using information included in the articles themselves or by looking for information on the Internet, and excluded articles when occupational information could not be located. Authors were categorized into four occupational categories: Librarians (practitioners), Academics (faculty and researchers), Students (graduate or undergraduate), and Others. Using these categories, the author identified 10 different types of collaborations for co-authored articles.
 Main Results – This research involves three primary research questions. The first examined the occupational differences between authors publishing in OA journals versus non-OA journals. Academics (faculty and researchers) more commonly published in non-OA journals (58.1%) compared to OA journals (35.6%). The inverse was true for librarian practitioners, who were more likely to publish in OA journals (53.9%) compared to non-OA journals (25.5%). Student authors, a combined category that included both graduate and undergraduate students, published more in non-OA journals (10.1%) versus in OA journals (5.0%). The final category of “other” saw only a slight difference between non-OA (6.3%) and OA (5.5%) publication venues.
 This second research question explored the difference in the proportion of LIS authors who published in OA and non-OA journals. Overall, authors were more likely to publish in OA journals (72.4%) vs. non-OA (64.3%). Librarians tended to be primary authors in OA journals, while LIS academics tend to be primary authors for articles in non-OA publications. Academics from outside the LIS discipline but contributing to the disciplinary literature were more likely to publish in non-OA journals. Regarding trends over time, this research showed a decrease in the percentage of librarian practitioners and “other” authors publishing in OA journals, while academics and students increased their OA contributions rates during the same period. 
 Finally, the research explored whether authors formed different types of collaborations when publishing in OA journals as compared to non-OA journals. When examining co-authorship of articles, just over half of all articles published in OA journals (54.4%) and non-OA journals (53.2%) were co-authored. Overall the researcher identified 10 types of collaborative relationships and examined the rates for publishing in OA versus non-OA journals for these relationships. OA journals saw three main relationships, with high levels of collaborations between practitioner librarians (38.6% of collaborations), between librarians and academics (20.5%), and between academics only (18.0%). Non-OA journals saw four main relationships, with collaborations between academics appearing most often (34.1%), along with academic-student collaborations (21.5%), practitioner librarian collaborations (15.5%), and librarian-academic collaborations (13.2%).
 Conclusion – LIS practitioner-focused research tends to appear more often in open access journals, while academic-focused researcher tends to appear more often in non-OA journals. These trends also appear in research collaborations, with co-authored works involving librarians appearing more often in OA journals, and collaborations that include academics more likely to appear in non-OA journals.

CiteULike bookmarks are correlated to citations at journal and author levels in library and information science

Aiming to explore the applicability of bookmarking data in measuring the scientific impact, the present study investigates the correlation between conventional impact indicators (i.e. impact factors and mean citations) and bookmarking metrics (mean bookmarks and percentage of bookmarked articles) at author and journal aggregation levels in library and information science (LIS) field. Applying the citation analysis method, it studies a purposeful sample of LIS articles indexed in SSCI during 2004---2012 and bookmarked in CiteULike. Data are collected via WoS, Journal Citation Report, and CiteULike. There is a positive, though weak, correlation between LIS authors' mean citations and their mean bookmarks, as well as a moderate to large correlation between LIS journals' impact factors on the one hand and on the other, their mean bookmarks, and the percentage of their bookmarked articles. Given the correlation between the citation- and bookmark-based indicators at author and journal levels, bookmarking data can be used as a complement to, but not a substitute for, the traditional indicators to get to a more inclusive evaluation of journals and authors.

Dimensions and uncertainties of author citation rankings: Lessons learned from frequency‐weighted in‐text citation counting

In‐text frequency‐weighted citation counting has been seen as a particularly promising solution to the well‐known problem of citation analysis that it treats all citations equally, be they crucial to the citing paper or perfunctory. But what is a good weighting scheme? We compare 12 different in‐text citation frequency‐weighting schemes in the field of library and information science (LIS) and explore author citation impact patterns based on their performance in these schemes. Our results show that the ranks of authors vary widely with different weighting schemes that favor or are biased against common citation impact patterns—substantiated, applied, or noted. These variations separate LIS authors quite clearly into groups with these impact patterns. With consensus rank limits, the hard upper and lower bounds for reasonable author ranks that they provide suggest that author citation ranks may be subject to something like an uncertainty principle.

Measuring the Quality of Contributions of Saudi Authors to LIS Journals Using Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM)

This research study evaluates the quality of articles published by Saudi and expatriate authors in foreign Library and Information Science (LIS) journals using three popular metrics for ranking journals—Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM). The reason for using multiple metrics is to see how closely or differently journals are ranked by the three different methods of citation analysis. However, the 2012 JIF list of journals is too small, almost half the size of the SJR and GSM lists, which inhibited one-to-one comparison among the impact factors of the thirty-six journals selected by Saudi authors for publishing articles. Only seventeen journals were found common to all the three lists, limiting the usefulness of the data. A basic problem is that Saudi LIS authors generally lack the level of competency in the English language required to achieve publication in the most prominent LIS journals. The study will have implications for authors, directors, and deans of all types of academic libraries; chairmen and deans of library schools; and the Saudi Library Association. Hopefully these entities will take necessary steps to prepare and motivate both academics and practicing librarians to improve the quality of their research and publications and thus get published in higher ranked journals.

Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to Communications in Information Literacy, 2007-2013

The author conducted a content analysis of papers submitted to the journal, Communications in Information Literacy, from the years 2007-2013. The purpose was to investigate and report on the overall quality characteristics of a statistically significant sample of papers submitted to a single-topic, open access, library and information science (LIS) journal. Characteristics of manuscript submissions, authorship, reviewer evaluations, and editorial decisions were illuminated to provide context; particular emphasis was given to the analysis of major criticisms found in reviewer evaluations of rejected papers. Overall results were compared to previously published research. The findings suggest a trend in favor of collaborative authorship, and a possible trend toward a more practice-based literature. The findings also suggest a possible deterioration in some of the skills that are required of LIS authors relative to the preparation of scholarly papers. The author discusses potential implications for authors and the disciplinary literature, recommends directions for future research, and where possible, provides recommendations for the benefit of the greater community of LIS scholars.

Writing Publishable Papers by Library and Information Science (LIS) Professionals in Nigeria

PurposeThis paper aims to present the summary of the training workshop on “How to write publishable papers by Library and Information Science (LIS) professionals” organized by the Nigerian Library Association (NLA), Ogun State Chapter on 25 May 2006 at Simeon Adebo Library, Kuto, Abeokuta, Nigeria.Design/methodology/approchThis paper begins by looking into why LIS professionals have to publish in professional journals and then examines factors responsible for manuscript rejection by editors of such journals. Other areas covered include the role of mentoring librarians to publish.FindingsThe main objective of the workshop is to train as well as provide useable guidelines to assist LIS authors in writing publishable manuscripts which they will submit for consideration and publication in professional journals. One of the most significant current discussions in the field of library and information science (LIS) profession is the perception of poor quality in manuscripts submitted for publication by librarians.Practical implicationsHints for structuring a more nurturing environment for improving writing and perfecting manuscript preparation in the field of Library and Information Science.Originality/valueThe paper makes recommendations on improving the overall quality of manuscripts written by LIS professionals.