Library Science Journals Research Articles

A study on statistical methods used in six journals of library and information science

Purpose – Quantitative methods, especially statistical methods, play an increasingly important role in research of library and information science (LIS). For different journals, the uses of statistical methods vary substantially due to different journal scopes and aims. The purpose of this paper is to explore the characteristics of statistical methodology uses in six major scholarly journals in LIS. Design/methodology/approach – Research papers that used statistical methods from the six major journals were selected and investigated. Content analysis method, descriptive statistical analysis method, and temporal analysis method were used to compare and analyze statistical method uses in research papers of the investigated journals. Findings – The findings of this study show that there was a clear growth trend of statistical method uses in five of the investigated journals; statistical methods were used most in The Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology and Information Processing & Management; and the top three most frequently used statistical methods were t-test, ANOVA test, and χ2-test. Originality/value – The findings can be used to better understand the application areas, patterns, and trends of statistical methods among the investigated journals and their statistical methodology orientations in research studies of LIS.

Effects of gender in library and information science research

Purpose This study aims to showcase the effect of gender in the field of library and information science. Design/methodology/approach Research and review articles published from 2005 through 2014 in The Electronic Library, a prominent journal in the field of Library and Information Science, were examined from the perspective of authors’ gender. Influence of gender was assessed with respect to at individual and collaborative levels, quality in terms of citedness and citation count, and receipt of research grants. Findings There has been an increase in the proportion of male authors over the years with a resulting decline in female authors. Male authors are more productive as teachers, while females contribute more as working professionals or while they peruse their academic/research programmes. Though the productivity in collaborative works has increased in all gender combinations, it is more prominent when authors of opposite gender team up. No significant difference is observed in the number of national or international works produced in different collaborative authorship patterns. There is no difference in the number of male and female authors in male–female collaborative works. Works sponsored by grants are produced more frequently in groups comprising male–female or male–male members. No significant difference is observed in the number of cited or uncited works produced in different authorship patterns. The number of citations to works is independent of the nature of gender-wise authorship patterns. Research limitations/implications The study examines the status of women in research, specifically in the field of library and information science. The findings of the study are based on the contribution of the authors involved with the journal, “The Electronic Library”. Readers are encouraged to expand the study by including authors that contribute to other library and information science journals. Originality/value The study is first of its kind to highlight the involvement and observe the influence of female authors in the field of library and information science research.

Temáticas em biblioteconomia e ciência da informação no Brasil: enfoque nos periódicos científicos eletrônicos

Destaca os periódicos científicos eletrônicos nacionais de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação com objetivo de identificar as temáticas mais debatidas em ciência da informação, por meio da análise dos artigos publicados de 2003 a 2013, além de detectar os temas dos artigos analisados visando conceber semelhanças e diferenças temáticas no âmbito da interdisciplinaridade, incluindo a identificação dos “vazios”, ou seja, de temas importantes e não contemplados. Incluem-se as revistas de biblioteconomia em virtude de parte dos títulos relevantes atualmente originarem-se de publicações antes dedicadas à biblioteconomia e que, após, concentraram-se em estudos de ciência da informação. Para consecução desta pesquisa de abordagem quali-quantitativa, natureza descritiva e concepção de estudo de caso, recorrem-se à análise documental e análise de conteúdo temática como técnicas de coleta e análise de dados, respectivamente. Verifica-se que o incremento da pesquisa nesse campo acompanha a expansão dos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação e se expande à medida que encontra nos periódicos eletrônicos, os meios para intensificar a comunicação científica e ratificar relações interdisciplinares. Registram-se 48 categorias temáticas, dentre elas, Gestão apresenta incidência mais elevada (191 artigos) em contraposição às classes Administração; e Meio Ambiente e Sustentabilidade, ambas com apenas sete estudos, cada. Biblioteconomia aparece com o maior número de relações interdisciplinares. Recomenda-se que pesquisadores da área voltem sua atenção a temas em ascensão ainda pouco explorados no âmbito da ciência da informação, a exemplo de Estudos Cognitivos e Comportamentais; e Arquitetura da Informação, haja vista as perspectivas de crescimento e de contribuição ao campo.

Correlation between impact factor and public availability of published research data in Information Science and Library Science journals

Scientists continuously generate research data but only a few of them are published. If these data were accessible and reusable, researchers could examine them and generate new knowledge. Our purpose is to determine whether there is a relationship between the impact factor and the policies concerning open availability of raw research data in journals of Information Science and Library Science (ISLS) subject category from the Web of Science database. We reviewed the policies related to public availability of papers and data sharing in the 85 journals included in the ISLS category of the Journal Citation Reports in 2012. The relationship between public availability of published data and impact factor of journals is analysed through different statistical tests. The variable statement of complementary material was accepted in 50 % of the journals; 65 % of the journals support reuse; 67 % of the journals specified in thematic or institutional repositories; the of the manuscript in a website was accepted in 69 % of the journals. We have found a 50 % of journals that include the possibility to deposit data as supplementary material, and more than 60 % accept reuse, storage in repositories and publication in websites. There is a clear positive relationship between being a top journal in impact factor ranking of JCR and having an open policy.

KOLABORASI DAN PRODUKTIVITAS PENULIS ARTIKEL VISI PUSTAKA 2000 – 2014

Visi Pustaka is one of the Library and Information Science (LIS) journals in Indonesia. Study about this journal needs to be done to find out the progress in Library and Information Science in Indonesia. This paper reviewed Visi Pustaka journal especially about the amount of articles, gender, collaboration degree, collaboration frequency, productivity, and author affiliation. Data collected from Visi Pustaka journal articles which published in 2000-2014 periods. Data analyzed using statistic descriptive method. The result showed that the amount of article published in 2000-2014 periods were 236 articles, about 65.64%written by men and 34.36% written by women. Average degree of collaboration was 0.097. The most productive authors were Sulistyo Basuki and B. Mustafa. Both of them submitted 16 articles. The most five productive affiliation were Bogor Institute of Agriculture (14.38%), Indonesian National Library (11.45%), Indonesian University (12.60%), Centre for Scientific Documentation and Information (8.02%) and Gadjah Mada University (6.11%). The affiliation status consisted of 212 (80.91%) government institutions and 50 (19.09%) was private organizations. We cloncluded that most gender of author was men, most of the articles wrote by individual authors, and most author affiliations were library and information institutions also universities.

The challenges facing library and information science journals: Editors' opinions

AbstractThis study aimed to gather the opinions of editors of Library and Information Science journals indexed in Scopus and the Web of Knowledge regarding the current situation and their forecasts on open access, peer review procedures, functionalities, and specialization. The response rate was 23%, and some noteworthy conclusions can be drawn according to editors' opinions: Within 5–10 years, the main business model for journal publishing will be open access. Institutional support is the preferred source of financing. The review process requires less than 2 months, and the main problems are low quality of texts and finding reviewers. Functionalities such as mobile versions of the journals, social media, data policy, and altmetrics have yet to be exploited; interdisciplinarity will increase the presence of these functionalities in journals, especially through the influence of the related areas of Communication, Management, and Computer Science. Finally, the area that will see the most changes is the management of research data.

The impact of non-accessible library and information science journals on research productivity in Pakistan

The purpose of this paper is to identify: (a) Non-accessible library and information science journals from HEC National Digital Library (DL) Subscribed databases, (b) Approaches adopted by the LIS researchers to acquire non-accessible articles, and (c) The impact of non-accessible articles on their research endeavor. A sequential exploratory strategy of mixed method research was applied to identify the impact of non-accessible LIS journals on research. This study was completed in two phases. In the first phase, an online surfing of all HEC subscribed databases was conducted and a list of openly accessible, partially accessible and non-accessible LIS journals was prepared. Impact factor of journals was checked from the list of Journal Citation Report by Thomson Reuter, 2013. In the second phase, a structured questionnaire was prepared to identify the approaches adopted by the researchers to acquire non-accessible articles and their impact on research productivity. Findings of the study show that (a) Emerald, (b) Science Direct, (c) JSTOR, (d) Project Muse, (e) Taylor & Francis, (f) Wiley-Blackwell Journals, and (g) University of Chicago Press, are the HEC subscribed databases which have LIS journals. Study reveals that there are 18 % non-accessible and 37 % partially accessible LIS journals on the HEC subscribed databases. Researchers tried to acquire non-accessible articles through friends, social networking sites (SNS) Groups, BDD and by requesting to authors etc. Respondents agreed that non-accessible journals do impact on research productivity. As a result, citations of non-accessible articles decreases, which negatively impact the quality and quantity of both authors and researchers' work. The outcomes of this study are significant for LIS researchers to become aware of the current situation of non-accessible journals and its impact on their research endeavors. It will also guide the HEC and research institutions to redesign their policy for the subscription of relevant databases that will enable complete access to journals on LIS discipline. It will also help to increase the quality of researchers' work and citation rate of authors' articles. This study may then be replicated in other fields and countries also. There is not enough work analyzing the impact of non-accessible journals on research productivity.

Validation of journal impact metrics of Web of Science and Scopus

Citation based metrics are widely used to assess the impact of research published in journals. This paper presents the results of a research study to verify the accuracy of data and calculations of journal impact metrics presented in Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus in the case of three journals of information and library science. Data collected from the websites of journals were compared with that of two citation extended databases. The study manually calculated Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Impact per Publication (IPP) in accordance with formulas given in the databases. Data were also collected from the Google Scholar for the purpose of comparison. The study found discrepancies in two sets of data and bibliometric values, i.e., systematic values presented in WoS and Scopus and calculated in this study. Commercial databases presented inflated measures based on fabricated or erroneous data. The study is of practical importance to researchers, universities and research financing bodies that consider these bibliometric indicators as a good tool for measuring performance, assessing, and evaluating research quality as well as researchers.

The Research Contributions of Editorial Board Members in Library and Information Science

Research experience is widely regarded as an important qualification for editorial board members. Not all board members are active scholars, however. This study evaluates the research contributions of individuals who served on the boards of thirty library and information science journals based on their publications in those same thirty journals from 2007 to 2012. Data for all authors—board members and others—allow for comparative analysis. Overall, 52 per cent of the 1,079 board members authored or co-authored at least one article in the thirty journals during the study period. The percentage varies considerably among journals, however, and it is substantially lower (35 per cent) among the ten practice-oriented journals. Moreover, the board members of the practice-oriented journals tend to write fewer articles than the authors who typically contribute to those journals. Among the thirty journals, citation impact is strongly correlated with board members' research productivity.

The status of open access library and information science journals in SSCI

Purpose The main purpose of this paper is to measure the status and quality of library and information science (LIS) open-access (OA) journals in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). Design/methodology/approach The study selected 86 source journals of LIS in the SSCI as a sample and measured their status of open access. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to analyze 36 OA journals of 86 source journals, especially their production capability, academic influence and network communication ability. Findings The results indicate that OA journals have become an increasingly important part of LIS journals. Production capability, academic influence and network communication ability are important factors affecting the quality of OA journals. These three evaluation indicators of LIS OA journals are high, but many still have room for improvement. Research limitations/implications As the paper is limited by collecting data, the indicators of OA journals’ quality are not all-around. So, they cannot reflect the quality of LIS OA journals. In the selection of the evaluation method, the evaluation results are limited because only one AHP method is used. Practical implications The research on evaluation of OA journals can help library and scientific research personnel use OA journals effectively. Identifying key factors on evaluation can help researchers to construct OA journals better. Social implications The research on OA journals’ quality can also promote the study on OA process in academic circles and promote the communication, development and utilization of academic information. Such research can also enrich the theory of OA, and provide some new perspectives for the study of journals’ evaluation. Originality/value This paper measures the quality of LIS OA journals by analyzing production capability, academic influence and network communication ability. Rather than the traditional research methods, the focus of this study is on the value of the Web as a source of impact indices. It contributes to the scholarly impact measurements of OA journals.

Library and Information Science Research Literature is Chiefly Descriptive and Relies Heavily on Survey and Content Analysis Methods

A Review of:
 Aytac, S. & Slutsky, B. (2014). Published librarian research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses and perspectives. Collaborative Librarianship, 6(4), 147-159.
 
 Objective – To compare the research articles produced by library and information science (LIS) practitioners, LIS academics, and collaborations between practitioners and academics. 
 
 Design – Content analysis. 
 
 Setting – English-language LIS literature from 2008 through 2012.
 
 Subjects – Research articles published in 13 library and information science journals.
 
 Methods – Using a purposive sample of 769 articles from selected journals, the authors used content analysis to characterize the mix of authorship models, author status (practitioner, academic, or student), topic, research approach and methods, and data analysis techniques used by LIS practitioners and academics. 
 
 Main Results – The authors screened 1,778 articles, 769 (43%) of which were determined to be research articles. Of these, 438 (57%) were written solely by practitioners, 110 (14%) collaboratively by practitioners and academics, 205 (27%) solely by academics, and 16 (2%) by others. The majority of the articles were descriptive (74%) and gathered quantitative data (69%). The range of topics was more varied; the most popular topics were libraries and librarianship (19%), library users/information seeking (13%), medical information/research (13%), and reference services (12%). Pearson’s chi-squared tests detected significant differences in research and statistical approaches by authorship groups. 
 
 Conclusion – Further examination of practitioner research is a worthwhile effort as is establishing new funding to support practitioner and academic collaborations. The use of purposive sampling limits the generalizability of the results, particularly to international and non-English LIS literature. Future studies could explore motivators for practitioner-academic collaborations as well as the skills necessary for successful collaboration. Additional support for practitioner research could include mentorship for early career librarians to facilitate more rapid maturation of collaborative research skills and increase the methodological quality of published research.

Producción científica sobre Comunicación y Medios en las revistas de Documentación (2000-2014)

Scientific studies on Communications and Media are usually discussed in communications publications, although Library and Information Science (LIS) journals, including those dedicated to Archives and Museums, also make up an important source for this material. The goal of this article is to analyze scholarly LIS journals from the past fifteen years (2000-2014) in order to obtain information on the authors, contents and specific contribution of each publication. This investigation has resulted in 404 articles, written by 403 authors representing 121 institutions, and analyses the contents of 50 media and public and private bodies, covering 340 topics referring to approximately 20 general subjects in the field of communications.

Social Network Analysis and Academic Performance of the Editorial Board Members for Journals of Library and Information Science

The editors of journal are the gatekeepers to hold the quality and direction of journal. Normally the editors of the journal are served as the “academic authority” in the corresponding discipline. Due to the limitation of the academic authority, it's common that one expert takes the editor for many journals, which is called the interlocking editorship phenomenon. Base on this, we firstly built a social network matrix of the editorial board members about CSSCI journals of Library and Information Science. After that, we utilized the K-cores analysis of SNA to separate the network structure and to find the core subgroup, used the centrality analysis to verify the core of the core subgroup nodes. Secondly, we counted the number of published papers in the past five years, the total cites and total downloads about this papers, and H index of total editorial board members. All of this data of bibliometrics reflects the academic performance of the editorial board member in the past five years. And then we proofed the academic quality of journals through the data. At last, we discussed some problems which exist in the current regime.

Literature Published on Web 2.0 Technologies in Libraries: A Bibliometric Study

The main aims of the study is to identify the growth and pattern of periodical literature published on Web 2.0 technologies in library science journals of Taylor and Francis database during the period 2005-2013. It covers bibliographic data of the articles published in the 34 journals of Taylor and Francis database. The study found that 428 scholarly journal articles on the subject published in 34 leading Librarianship journals of Taylor and Francis database for the period 2005-2013. It also founds that 2008 is the most productive year having 79 articles. In the context of most productive journals, the study observed ‘Journal of Web Librarianship’ has 50 articles, hence it is considered as the core journal on the topic. Steven Ovadia has been the most prolific author on the subject having 12 articles.

Do Editorial Board Members in Library and Information Science Publish Disproportionately in the Journals for Which They Serve as Board Members?

This article investigates whether the board members of thirty well-known library and information science journals are especially likely to publish in the journals for which they serve as board members. It compares board member authors with all the authors who published in each journal from 2007 through 2012. Overall, only 36 per cent of board member authors published more articles in their own journals than might be expected based on the publication patterns of all the authors who published in each journal. That is, 64 per cent published fewer articles than expected. This may reflect lower submission rates from board members (perhaps to avoid conflicts of interest), differences in the quality of submissions, or systematic bias in the review process.

Scholarly productivity of Arab librarians in Library and Information Science journals from 1981 to 2010

Several studies discussed the characteristics of authors who published in Library and Information Science journals. Although none focused specifically on Arab librarians as authors, the current study attempts to reveal the scholarly contributions to library literature by Arab librarians. The study describes and analyses the journal research publications in Library and Information Science journals by professional librarians from 1981 to 2010. Single-author articles are found to be highly followed by two and three authored articles. The average degree of collaboration between authors in Library and Information Science journals is 9.64% (only 19 journal articles written by at least two or three authors). Finally, this study provides recommendations to Arab librarians to encourage them to be engaged in research in the Library and Information Science discipline.

When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals

In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.

Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis

A total of 1162 research articles, published from 2001 to 2010 in three major journals of library and information science (LIS), are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively in order to address some recurring themes about research method selection and application in the scholarly domain. This study shows that LIS scholars utilize a greater number and wider variety of research methods than before. Replacing the dominant positions that questionnaire survey and historical method previously held, content analysis, experiment, and theoretical approach have become the top choices of research methods in the field. This study also examines two recurring themes regarding research methods in the LIS field, namely, use of multiple methods in one study and adoption of the qualitative approach, but finds no conclusive evidence of increased implementation of either practice. More efforts in the form of education, training and advocacy are therefore needed to help LIS scholars gain a better understanding of research methods and make more informed decisions on research method selection and implementation in their scholarly endeavors.

LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: a stated preference study

This stated preference study approached the issue on sub-categorization of the information science---library science (IS---LS) journals listed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2011. To investigate this, 243 active authors/editors publishing in this field were requested to indicate their preferred category to 83 journal titles listed in JCR 2011 from four options: information science (IS), library science (LS), information systems (ISys) and do not know/undecided. Based on the popularity count, respondents assigned 39 titles to LS, 23 titles to IS and 21 titles to ISys. Twenty-five titles received high "do-not-know" counts--these are titles in non-English languages, information management and publishing sub-fields. Only one title in LS was grouped in the highest quartile by impact factor, compared to 8 titles in IS and 11 in ISys. This indicates that LS journals are hardly represented among the top 25 % of the impact factor distribution of JCR's ranked IS---LS journals. Respondents show concern about the "fit" of information systems journals in the IS---LS category.

Uncited papers, uncited authors and uncited topics: A case study in library and information science

Abstract In this article we study three types of uncitedness in Library and Information Science journals: uncitedness for articles, authors and topics. One important aspect in this study is giving accurate definitions of the indicators for measuring uncited papers, uncited authors and uncited topics. It is found that for the period 1991–2010 ratios of uncited papers fluctuate within the interval [0,0.1]. This ratio is relatively stable and not very high. Comparison of average number of pages, average number of references, average number of authors per paper and percentage of single-authored papers between cited and uncited papers shows that no matter the journal, the first three indicators’ values for uncited papers are lower, while the values of the fourth indicator are higher, than the corresponding values for cited papers. The fact that almost all uncited authors in a journal published only one paper in this journal illustrates that a journal's uncited authors are the least productive authors in this journal. Yet, productive and highly cited authors also publish uncited papers. As to why some topics fall into the group of uncited topics, the hypothesis is that the combination of unfamiliar keywords forms an unfamiliar topic, a topic authors have elected not to study further. Another assumption is that some uncited topics fall outside the field of Library and Information Science. Retrieval results in the Web of Science for a set of uncited keywords and keyword combinations support this assumption.