LIS Journals Research Articles

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.

Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach – The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading “Information Science and Library Science” there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors’ names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings – A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications – The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value – Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

Web Citation Trends in Indian LIS Journals: A Citation Analysis

The aim of this study is to know the use of web citations in Indian LIS journals published during 2001 to 2010. The findings of study shows that the average number of web citations per article ranged from a low of 1.02 in 2001, to a high of 4.58 in 2010. There was a constant and continuous increase in the number of articles with web citations over the years during 2001–2010. The average number of web citations for every article is 2.60. The most widely cited top level domains were organizational (.org) and commercial (.com) with 30.91% and 22.08% respectively. The highest percentage of web citations belonged to HTML file formats (67.30%) followed by PDF file formats (11.39%).

Worldwide contributors to the literature of library and information science: top authors, 2007–2012

This study identifies the top individual contributors to 31 LIS journals from 2007 to 2012, both worldwide (all disciplines) and among four groups: LIS faculty in the US and Canada, LIS faculty in the UK, LIS faculty in other countries, and librarians worldwide. The distribution of authorship is highly skewed. Although more than 9,800 authors (86.4 %) each contributed no more than a single article over the six-year period, the top 50 authors (0.4 %) each contributed eight or more articles, with an average of 13.0. Together, the top 50 authors account for nearly 8 % of the LIS literature. Moreover, the most productive LIS faculty are concentrated in relatively few universities. Faculty in the natural sciences and LIS are more likely to be found among the top 50 authors than their overall contributions would suggest, while librarians, computer scientists and non-academic authors are underrepresented. Top authors are especially likely to publish in the Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics. Among American LIS faculty, the list of the most prolific authors has changed substantially over time. Only three of the top 21 authors of the 1999---2004 period can be found on the current top-20 list.

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.

Google Scholar의 학술정보 검색을 위한 정보 유용성 비교연구

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether Google Scholar (GS) can substitute Web of Science (WoS) for those who don’t have access to the subscription-based indexing service and if users feel GS is useful for scholarly information. To achieve the research purpose, the study evaluates both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the two databases. The major results through statistical analysis show that GS indexes much more records and citations for LIS journals than WoS(p < .01), but users’ feedback about GS is not better than those about WoS.

Core Journals in Library and Information Science: Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals

In the library science field, there is no professionally accepted tiered list of journals in the United States to guide librarians, as there is in other academic disciplines. This situation creates a challenge for both new and experienced librarians who wish to make a serious contribution to librarianship by publishing articles. This article outlines a methodology used at the Libraries of Purdue University, which could be adapted by other university libraries, to create a tiered list of journals tailored to the institution. The article begins with a literature review that identifies a short list of top-level journals. This is followed by the methodology that uses expert opinion surveys, acceptance and circulation rates, impact factors, h-indexes, and journals with local faculty articles. Tables with the journals ranked into three tiers are included.

학술지 동시인용분석을 이용한 문헌정보학 분야의 지적구조 분석

본 연구는 학술지를 이용한 동시인용분석을 통해 문헌정보학 분야의 지적구조를 분석하고자 하였다. Journal Citation Reports의 Journal Impact Factor를 바탕으로 선택한 문헌정보학 분야의 30개 학술지를 대상으로 조사된 동시인용 수치를 이용하여 네트워크 분석을 시행하였으며, 이 연구의 결과를 통해 어떤 학술지가 이 분야의 주요한(core) 학술지이며 그렇지 않은 학술지는 어떤 것들이 있는지 파악할 수 있다. 네트워크 분석을 통해 비교적 간단한 방법으로 얻어진 결과임에도 불구하고, 군집분석이나 다차원축적법 같은 통계적 접근법을 통한 대부분의 지적구조분석과 매우 유사한 결과를 보여주었다. The study investigated the intellectual structure of the library and information science field by journal co-citation analysis on thirty LIS journals with high journal impact factors. Patterns of journal-to-journal citation show the structure of journals in the field, visualized by a networked map of the journals. The result shows journals that can be considered as the core group and as the peripheral group, which corresponds to other studies for investigating the field's intellectual structure using other techniques, such as cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling.

Publish or Practice? An Examination of Librarians’ Contributions to Research

This article examines authorship of LIS literature in the context of practitioner and non-practitioner production of published research. For this study, 4,827 peer-reviewed articles from twenty LIS journals published between 1956 and 2011 were examined to determine the percentage of articles written by practitioners. The study identified a decrease in the proportion of articles authored by practitioners between 2006 and 2011. Topic analysis of articles revealed subtle yet distinct differences in research subject matter between practitioner-authored and non-practitioner-authored articles. If present trends continue, the character of LIS literature may shift away from many issues relating to practical librarianship.

The Characteristics of Journal Editorial Boards in Library and Information Science

A study of the members of the editorial boards of 16 leading LIS journals shows that the boards vary markedly in size, in diversity (in terms of both gender and nationality) and in the experience and publication/citation profiles (based on Web of Science data) of their board-members. A typical editorial board member will be male, work in the USA, have published their first LIS article in 1995, and have 9.5 publications and 39 non-self citations to those publications, with the publication/citation profiles differing significantly from those of non-board-member contributors to the 16 journals.

Identidad, globalidad y colaboración. El rol identitario de la revista especializada en Bibliotecología en América Latina

This editorial discusses the topic of the articles published in this volume, and compares them to the mainstream LIS journals. This procedure leads the author to the following conclusions: The issues and share concerns coincide with current Anglo-American LIS subjects, and also evident local characteristics. Thus, globalization and local visions live and feed in a dynamic exchange.

Contributions of Pakistani authors to foreign library and information science journals

PurposeIn addition to quantitative analysis, the purpose of this paper is to measure the quality of articles published in foreign LIS journals by Pakistani authors based on their Impact Factor (IF) scores reported in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of 2010; also to discuss the significance and implications of this study for the current and potential authors in Pakistan and other developing countries.Design/methodology/approachThe data for this study were collected from two sets of sources: first, online sources of Google Scholar, LISA, LISTA, an online 50‐year cumulative index of Pakistani LIS literature, and web pages of several authors; and second, printed indexes and bibliographies. The data collected were manually entered into MS Excel for tabulation and created nine tables, which formed the basis of discussion in the paper.FindingsThe contribution of Pakistani authors to foreign LIS journals is reasonable in number and below average in quality, according to the JCR IF scores. The authorship patterns show that there is a shift from single‐authorship to collaborative authorship. The contribution of academics is several times higher than that of library practitioners. Likewise the non‐resident Pakistani authors' share in the global LIS literature is much larger as compared to their counterparts living in Pakistan.Originality/valueThis is the first study that evaluates the quality of Pakistani LIS literature using the more popular journal ranking method, JCR IF. The results of this study are expected to have a positive impact on Pakistani authors as they start preparing articles according to the quality requirements of JCR‐ranked journals in the future.

Editorial

Dear SAJLlSReaders, It is our pleasure to present SAJLlSVol.69 No 2, the last issue of 2003, with five research articles and three book reviews. There are three items of good news worth sharing with our readers. First, South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science is included in the revised list of journals to be subsidised by the Department of Education (DoE) from 2005, as reflected in the "Policy for Measurement of Research Output of Public Higher Education Institutions" (http://www.education.gov.za). The list consists of 197 South African Journals and the journals indexed by lSI (http://www.isinet.com/isi/journals/index.htm/) and International Bibliography of Social Sciences (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/IBSS/access/Default.htm). Two additional LIS journals (Mousaion of UNISA and South African Journal of Information Management of RAU) have also been included in the new list. The objective of the policy is "to encourage research productivity by rewarding quality research output at public higher education institutions". Currently, DoE pays R28 500 to Public Higher Education Institutions in South Africa for each article published in the subsidised journals by an affiliated author. Each institution has devised its own way of allocating the money for research promotion and support (e.g. University of Zululand allocates 60% to the author, 15% to the author's department and 25% remains in the central pool). The electronic version of SAJLlShas been compiled by SABINET aswas agreed with L1ASAand can now be accessed electronically through SABINET. In addition, the Representative Council has approved free electronic access to the journal for paid-up L1ASAmembers. Negotiated electronic access to the journal is available to institutions and libraries that subscribe to SABINET information products and services. Thirdly, it is gratifying to note that L1ASARepresentative Council has approved the increase of journal issues from two in 2003 to three as from 2004. Council has also promised a fourth issue in 2004 if income from the journal increases (the journal is largely financed through membership fees. Other sources are DALRO fees, page fees and advertisements). We are proud to record that the journal has attracted both established and novice authors, which is essential for sustainability and capacity building as a solid African journal. This issue reflects a mixture of contributions from established authors, novice authors and collaborative publications (both peer to peer and academic and student) that is encouraging.

Knowledge input for the domain of information science

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to explore the knowledge input and the subject relationship with other disciplines for the domain of information science through a citation analysis, from the references of each article from 1998 to 2008, of four leading information science journals, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Information Processing and Management, Journal of Information Science, and Journal of Documentation.Design/methodology/approachThe Ulrich's Periodical Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. The highly cited journals and books, the main classes and subclasses of cited journals and books in papers of the four journals, the highly cited subjects in journals and books of library and information science were identified and analyzed.FindingsThe study reveals that information science possessing strong self knowledge flow as these four source journals are also the four most cited. The class library science, book industries and trade, general information resources consists of a mainstream of knowledge flow into information science. The highly cited subjects of LIS journals encompass searching, online information retrieval, information work, subject indexing, World Wide Web, technical services, citation analysis, information seeking behavior, etc. The three most cited LCSH subjects on WorldCat of books are information storage and retrieval, information science, human‐computer interaction, etc.Originality/valueThe knowledge inputs for information science include mainly information science itself and social sciences and general science as well. Moreover, there are minor inputs from various subjects.

Web of Science based ranking of Indian library and information science journals

Although none of the Indian LIS journals are indexed in Web of Science, articles published in Indian journals and, cited by the SCI/SSCI source journals, are available in WoS as cited references. The study through the use of ‘cited reference search’ feature of WoS looks at the citations received by the Indian journals and compares it with the existing rankings of Indian LIS journals done by different authors who have used various methods. Despite the many limitations of the of the ‘cited reference search’ and keeping in view that the Indian LIS journals are not covered in WoS, the findings based on the ‘cited reference search’ still corroborates the existing ranking patterns and shows that Annals of Library and Information Studies, DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, SRELS Journal of Information Management, IASLIC Bulletin etc., are prominent Indian LIS journals.

HTTP 404-page (not) found: Recovery of decayed URL citations

Study investigates the availability, persistence and half life of URL citations cited in two Indian LIS journals articles published between 2002 and 2010. This study also investigates how researchers can resurrect lapsed URL citations cited in research articles, using Wayback machine. A total of 1290 URLs cited in 472 research articles published in Indian LIS journals spanning a period of 9 years (2002–2010) were extracted. Study found that only 18.91% (1290 out of 6820) of URLs cited in these journal articles. 39.84% of URL citations were not accessible and remaining 60.15% of URL citations were still accessible. The HTTP 404 error message-“page not found” was the overwhelming message encountered and represented 54.86% of all HTTP error messages. However 51.06% URLs were recovered from HTTP 404 error message. Study also noticed that the half-life of URL citations was increased from 6.33 years to 13.85 years after recovering missing URLs from Wayback machine.

Exploring the directed h-degree in directed weighted networks

Most networks in information science appear as weighted networks, while many of them (e.g. author citation networks, web link networks and knowledge flow networks) are directed networks. Based on the definition of the h-degree, the directed h-degree is introduced for measuring both weighted networks and directed networks. After analyzing the properties and derived measures of the directed h-degree an actual application of LIS journals citation network is worked out.

LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus

The study compares the coverage, ranking, impact and subject categorization of Library and Information Science journals, specifically, 79 titles based on data from Web of Science (WoS) and 128 titles from Scopus. Comparisons were made based on prestige factor scores reported in 2010 Journal Citation Reports and SCImago Journal Rank 2010 and noting the change in ranking when the differences are calculated. The rank normalized impact factor and the Library of Congress Classification System were used to compare impact rankings and subject categorization. There was high degree of similarity in rank normalized impact factor of titles in both WoS and Scopus databases. The searches found 162 journals, with 45 journals appearing in both databases. The rankings obtained for normalized impact scores confirm higher impact scores for titles covered in Scopus because of its larger coverage of titles. There was mismatch of subject categorization among 34 journal titles in both databases and 22 of the titles were not classified under Z subject headings in the Library of Congress catalogue. The results revealed the changes in journal title rankings when normalized, and the categorization of some journal titles in these databases might be incorrect.

Persistence and half‐life of URL citations cited in LIS open access journals

PurposeThe main purpose of the present study is to examine the availability and persistence of URL citations in two LIS open access journals. It also intended to calculate the half‐life period of URL citations cited in journal articles.Design/methodology/approachA total of 2,890 URL citations cited in 689 research articles published in LIS journals spanning a period of 14 years (1996‐2009) were extracted. In order to check the accessibility of URL citations, W3C link checker was used. After the initial check, inactive URL citations were listed. Domains and HTTP errors associated with inactive URL citations were identified for further analysis. The half‐life period was calculated using the formula t(h)=[t ln(0.5)]/[ln W(t)−ln W(0)].FindingsThe research findings indicated that 57.61 percent (397 of 689) of articles have URL citations and percentage of URL citations increased from 5.98 percent in 1996 to 27.79 percent in 2009. It was found that 26.08 percent of all citations were not accessible during the time of testing and the majority of errors were due to HTTP 404 error code (not found). The domains.net and.gov were more stable compared to the domains.com/.co,.org, and.edu. The half‐life was computed to be approximately 11.5 years, which compares favorably against earlier research works.Originality/valueThis is a comprehensive study on the availability and persistence of URL citations cited in LIS journals articles spanning a period of 14 years. The findings of the study will be helpful to authors, publishers and editorial staff to improve existing URL citation conventions and to promote URL use to ensure that URL citations are accessible in future.

Librarian and LIS Faculty Participation in Self-Archiving Practice Needs Improvement

Objective – To compare librarian and LIS faculty open access (OA) self-archiving behavior.&#x0D; &#x0D; Design – Logistical Regression Analysis.&#x0D; &#x0D; Setting – Twenty top-ranked library and information science journals published in 2006.&#x0D; &#x0D; Subjects – A total of 812 research articles in LIS journals.&#x0D; &#x0D; Methods – For the purpose of data collection, the researchers first compiled a list of library and information science journals utilizing Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from 2006. Twenty journals were selected by considering impact factor and the list compiled was checked against Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory following a similar methodology utilized in a 2007 article by Anita Coleman. The sample included was representative of both library and information science journals, and there were exclusions of 3 types of journals: free online journals where OA participation could not be measured; subscription based journals that do not supply free articles; and annual review journals. Here, OA participation or OA practice is considered to be author self-archiving of articles that are not freely available online. Research articles were included in the sample; however, editorials and book reviews were excluded. The researchers also collected information about the article itself, including the title, name of the journal and name of the author. Only first author’s status as librarian or LIS faculty was considered in data collection. One difficulty in collecting data about the authors was that their professional status was not always clear. The researchers collected information on whether the author’s status was librarian or faculty; when an author’s status was unclear, researchers searched online to determine it. If the author’s status still could not be determined via online searching, the authors chose to exclude those articles. &#x0D; &#x0D; After the articles were collected, Google Scholar was searched in order to determine OA status. The articles that were deemed OA were opened and if the article was downloadable, it was included; otherwise, it was not included. Researchers also avoided linking to articles through their own library portal which would have allowed for access to articles through their own library’s subscription. Other data was collected using Web of Science and included citation information; length of articles; and number of references, authors, and self-citations. &#x0D; &#x0D; Analysis of data was performed utilizing logistic regression. The researchers selected the professional status (librarian or faculty) as the dependent variable, assigning 1 to librarian status and 0 to faculty status. The independent variables included the OA status of an article, citation count, self-citation counts, number of authors, length in pages, and number of references. Researchers also chose to normalize data by adding one citation to every article in the dataset because many did not receive citations. SPSS was utilized as the statistical analysis tool. &#x0D; &#x0D; Main Results – Researchers were able to recognize a divide with regard to where librarians and librarian faculty publish. Librarians tend to avoid journals that focus on information science and publish more in journals related to the practice of librarianship. &#x0D; &#x0D; After performing the logistic regression analysis, researchers also chose to look at the “dichotomous dependent variable” and the “dichotomous predictor variable.” The dependent variable was article availability in OA and the predictor variable is professional status of the author. They ran a 2X2 contingency table and the p-value was below 0.05; therefore, there was a failure to reject the null hypotheses that there is no difference between librarian and faculty publication behaviors. An odds ratio was also calculated that reveals that librarians are only 1.029 times more likely to self-archive their articles than faculty. &#x0D; &#x0D; Results from the logistic regression model analysis also included information that librarians and faculty have similar behavior with regard to self-archiving the OA version of their publication, and the researchers provide data in table format in order to depict the relationships between predictor variables and dependent variables. With regard to author status and citation counts, faculty have more citation numbers, self-citations are not related to author status, and faculty tend to self-cite more often. Librarians favor co-authorship more than faculty, and faculty articles tend to be lengthier and utilize more references.&#x0D; &#x0D; Effectiveness of the logistic regression analysis was tested using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for goodness of fit and showed that logistic regression analysis was the proper method for analyzing data collected with a 74.8 success rate.&#x0D; &#x0D; According to the article, there is no difference between librarian and faculty with regard to self-archiving OA activity; faculty members receive more citations regardless of OA status; and there are differences between the two with regard to other variables of articles. &#x0D; &#x0D; Conclusion – Because librarians and LIS faculty are considered to be advocates for self-archiving and are often involved with institutional repositories, it is surprising that they are not themselves participating more in self-archiving behaviors.