Demystifying the way libraries support distance learning: a bibliometric analysis of scholarly communication in distance libraries

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to report on bibliometric research on the activities and services offered by distance libraries that serve distance learning institutions.

Design/methodology/approach

The analysis of scholarly communication has always been a valuable tool for researchers and policymakers in order to understand trends, gaps and patterns in a specific field. In this paper, a bibliometric analysis has been applied based on a well-known bibliometric tool called “VOSviewer.” The articles that constitute the dataset of current research were drawn from two journals: the Journal of Library Administration and the Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning.

Findings

The bibliometric analysis applied in distance libraries showed that the researchers in this domain are mainly introverts and need to prioritize engaging in the scientific research process over merely publishing good practices. Although there are a lot of libraries serving distance learning institutions (formal and non-formal), there is a notable lack of activity in the scientific publication field.

Originality/value

Distance libraries have played a significant role in supporting distance learning, and since distance education has become more important in the educational ecosystem, the analysis of its scholarly production would provide administrators, researchers and policymakers with insights for the next era of conventional libraries.

Citation

Papachristopoulos, L. (2024), "Demystifying the way libraries support distance learning: a bibliometric analysis of scholarly communication in distance libraries", Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-01-2024-0006

1. Introduction

It is a common truth that distance education has secured its position within the academic ecosystem due to the combination of convenience and efficiency it offers. The available reports show a steady upward trend in enrollments in distance learning programs, for which the outbreak of the pandemic was a pivotal point changing the next day of academic reality (Institute of Education Sciences, 2023). Whether exclusive or partial, distance learning courses have become a viable educational option as a result of circumstantial factors (e.g. pandemic) (Khlaif et al., 2021), changing needs and/or behaviors (Ilgaz and Gulbahar, 2017) and technological options (Kaputa et al., 2022). COVID-19 ignited a total makeover of the higher education (HE) landscape, challenging institutions and educators to test their limits, break them and rethink what “should” and what “can” be done. In fact, everything is possible – as digital infrastructure is available and modern students are already familiar with it (Stadler et al., 2017).

Libraries that serve distance learning have been present for years in the ecosystems of distance learning institutions. The outbreak of the pandemic was a turning point for that specific library type, which acts like a parallel universe to the distance education curricula. COVID-19 was the turning point for the conventional academic libraries to think and act like distance learning libraries, not just for a specific period but also for the post-pandemic era, where a new crisis may loom and user behavior will have already changed. As Ortega-Martínez et al. (2021) mentioned, the pandemic period accelerated the swift to a “new normality.” But what constitutes the “normality” of distance libraries? What are the issues that monopolize the research focus of libraries over time? The new normality for conventional libraries constitutes the “revolution of something self-evident” for distance libraries. Libraries should familiarize themselves with a research corpus that has been nearly latent all these years. Additionally, conventional libraries should know the agents of scientific production who have been the driving forces of the specific domain in previous years in order to serve as examples and reference points.

Current research is attempting to highlight the dynamics of a distance library research field that has been an outlier of the librarianship domain. It is important to highlight not only the way this particular research area developed but also its impact on the whole library and information science (LIS) field. More specifically, the current study is unveiling the countries and institutions that play a significant role in the research ecosystem of distance libraries, their collaboration pattern and the impact of this work done so far. Additionally, a close look at the authors’ keywords that describe the aforementioned scientific production will disclose the topical orientation of this research activity. Conventional library managers should have a clear understanding of the scientific research in the specific field in order to adapt the operation of their libraries to the new conditions where distance learning is a reality.

This article is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the relationship between libraries and distance education, the challenges facing the field of distance libraries and previous research outlining the relevant research production. Section 3 presents the methodological approach of current research, while section 4 depicts the analysis of the research results, and Sections 5 and 6 host the conclusions drawn along with potential future attempts. The limitations of the study are presented in the last section of this work.

2. Previous studies on distance libraries ecosystem

2.1 The chronicle of evolution

With or without extreme circumstances like the pandemic – which accelerated the progress of education towards its digital transformation – the role of libraries in distance education is unquestionable and more relevant than ever. Stephens (1996) notes that the distance library concept entered the librarianship terminological ecosystem in the late 1970s when the UK Open University pointed out the need to support its students by taking the responsibility for meeting the information needs of the academic community it served without relying on other libraries. Distance libraries have had to overcome specific challenges related to the location of users, the provision of services and the adoption of new technologies to better serve users (Swaine, 2000). Snyder et al. (1997) described a new position called “distance education librarian” acting as a mediator between the educational process and the content by being present in the classroom and by presenting the possibilities offered by the library of the distance education provider. The years that followed made the LIS community understand that the skills of the personnel supporting distance library services should be under constant update and development (Fritts and Casey, 2010). Baird and Wilson (2008) gave the first description of “distance learning librarian” skills.

Almost ten years later, Cooke (2005), having already realized the benefits of web-based distance learning (e.g. autonomous, self-paced and motivated), emphasized the transformation that had already occurred in the distance learning field. The center has shifted from the teacher-centric perspective to a more interactive mode, bringing content into a more central position of the learning process. Librarians could act as facilitators between remote and off-campus users and the resources, either electronically or through postal mail. At the same time, Slade (2004, p.33) highlighted a weakness in the library community as librarians did not have “integrated services for distance learning into the mainstream of library operations and promoted these services to both faculty and students.”

2.2 Distance libraries challenges

Building an effective relationship between patrons and distance libraries presupposes two basic conditions: adequate awareness level and technical skills. Distance learning students are often unaware of the presence of a library supporting the educational needs of their curriculum. Atuase and Maluleka (2022) underline the fact that distance libraries face a range of challenges regarding the marketing of their services and resources. There are a lot of restrictions such as lack of time and know-how, financial limitations and limited cooperation from stakeholders that affect the optimal exploitation of the content and services provided. Papachristopoulos et al. (2023) note that, during the pandemic, distance libraries tried to implement a more aggressive promotional strategy via the maximization of electronic content offered and the intensive enhancement of users’ knowledge – on electronic resources – via online sessions and video dissemination on a YouTube channel. At the same time, the absence of library participation in the design and support of the programs is evident, since the suggested literature for the completion of student projects is not often part of the library’s resources. Libraries should be a part of the educational process, and for this reason, it is suggested that librarians should be involved in online courses to become one-stop-shops for distance learners. Ritterbush (2013) highlights that faculty members assume that distant learners are aware of the library and already know how to use it, which is why they do not redirect them to library resources or incorporate lessons on the use of the library into their classes. All the aforementioned issues were underlined by Stephens (1996) in the late 2000s in her literature review about the role of libraries in distance learning and still remain unresolved.

Regardless of the challenges that distance libraries may face, the emergence of distance education has also highlighted their role, especially after the breakout of the pandemic (Tsekea and Chigwada, 2021; Zhou, 2022). Students found it convenient to study online and additionally found it very helpful to have access to distance library services (Zhou, 2022). Conventional libraries were transformed into distance libraries during quarantine, providing necessary services such as free educational content, instructions on their services and instant online communication via chat applications (Zhou, 2022). This transformation was received by library users as a step toward innovation. Conventional libraries may have some problems regarding printed material circulation, but distance libraries have prepared as they circulate printed material by post (Papachristopoulos et al., 2023). The latter is a part of distance library operation. The Standards for Distance and Online Learning Library Services (ACRL, 2023) mention that it is crucial to develop “policies for delivering hard copy and electronic materials.” According to Tsekea and Chigwada (2021), libraries should invest in technological and human capital in order to seamlessly offer their services, both face-to-face and remotely. Social media platforms were used as communication platforms and access to e-books, e-journals and institutional repositories were issues of major concern. Otike et al. (2022) mentioned that the failure to adopt distance library services during COVID-19 was due to a lack of user training.

2.3 Distance libraries scientific orientation

Librarianship-oriented research has attempted to map the research area related to distance libraries by analyzing existing scientific production. Slade (2004, p. 7) in his early work pointed out that the literature trend shifted from “physical libraries and print materials to access to electronic libraries and electronic resources.” The types of published papers were mostly institutional practices, opinion papers and presentations of project results. Slade’s (2004) content analysis highlighted specific scientific areas, which are “web lessons for improving library skills,” “information seeking studies,” “tutorials’ development,” “information literacy,” “planning and delivering services,” “intellectual property issues,” “digitization” and “electronic reference services.” Herring’s (2010) analysis of 472 articles for the period 1999–2009 showed that scholarly communication in the distance library field has an upward dynamic trend employing diverse research methodologies. The variety of methodological approaches that seem to be applied is an indication of interdisciplinarity – after all, the library sector is interdisciplinary (Papachristopoulos et al., 2016) – and scientific and thematic evolution. The most popular topics in distance library scholarly communication were “access” and “instruction,” while “collection development” seemed to be almost out of focus.

The current work's significance lies in the fact that almost 20 years after Slade’s literature review (2004), no bibliometric analysis has come to light, unveiling both the hidden topics that interest distance libraries and the agents (countries and/or institutions) shaping this subfield. Even Herring’s (2010) attempt to analyze the scientific production is outdated and can be characterized as one-dimensional, focusing on the methodologies applied to these scientific works. The importance of the research is further underlined by the fact that not only this specific LIS subfield has experienced intensive development since these two previous works, but also that technological advancements and crisis events (pandemic) that occurred within this period have led to the emergence of the role of this type of library.

This work attempts to update our knowledge of distance libraries’ scholarly communication as it attempts to highlight researchers and institutions that have already played a vital part in the development of the field as well as the impact of their work. Additionally, it focuses on the collaboration patterns between research agents at personal, institutional or national levels. There are various bibliometric analyses related to the LIS field (Haq, 2021; Merigó et al., 2018), but none, as far as we know, concerning distance library services.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research questions

The purpose of this research is to describe the ecosystem of research on the services and activities offered by distance libraries to date. More specifically, current research addresses the following questions:

RQ1.

Which are the countries and the institutions significantly involved in the formulation of distance library research?

RQ2.

What are the collaboration patterns between researchers and institutions and what is the impact of their research?

RQ3.

What is the impact of current research?

3.2 Data collection

The articles that constitute the dataset of current research were drawn from two journals: the Journal of Library Administration (years of coverage 1999–2021) and the Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning (years of coverage 2004–2023). These two journals were indicated by Herring (2010) as the most representative since the first focuses on scientific research in the specific epistemological field and the second one as the journal that hosted part of the research presented in the biennial Off-Campus Library Services Conference/Distance Library Services Conference [1]. The articles extracted from the Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning (n = 420) are considered fully relevant to the topic, while the articles extracted from the Journal of Library Administration are the result of the implementation of a search using the keywords “distance learning” and “distance education” (n = 120). The basic criterion for selecting these scientific venues was the exclusivity of the content of the host. Both the Journal of Library Administration and the Journal of Library as the Off-Campus Library Services Conference/Distance Library Services Conference constitute the most representative host points of distance library-oriented scientific production.

3.3 Analysis procedure

The analysis of the dataset was based on VOSviewer version 1.6.18 (van Eck and Waltman, 2017). VOSviewer is used for the creation and display of graphs based on data from bibliographic databases such as Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. As mentioned earlier, our dataset consists of bibliographic records extracted from Scopus. The dataset was loaded as a comma-separated values (CSV) file into the specific tool, which generated networks (e.g. keyword networks, countries and institution networks etc.). VOSviewer users can delve into these graphs by studying the emerging clusters.

4. Results

4.1 Collaboration and impact

Analyzing the most impactful works in the field of distance library services, we notice that topics that seem to be more appealing to researchers are those who are related to the educational role of the distance libraries (Figure 1). This role is supported through synchronous or asynchronous channels, tutorials and LibGuides. The role of distance libraries is to contribute as an intermediary to knowledge by limiting constraints to content. In fact, libraries should act as facilitators of constraints faced by distance learners. The mean citation count of the top 11 most cited articles was 35.54 (range 29–55) (Table A1, appendix).

As Table 1 presents, the USA is the most productive country in the area of library support for distance education with 440 papers. It is by far the most active country, followed by Canada with 33 papers. Nigeria and South Africa follow with seven papers, but we cannot claim that such a small productive number plays a decisive role in the 24-year period (1999–2023 years of dataset coverage) we are studying. However, the research activity of Canadian scientists seems to be more influential, with an average of 7.87 citations. We have to mention that Europe seems to be inactive in the research field. Only four countries (the UK, Spain, Estonia and Greece) have submitted an article focused on distance library services, while at the same time, Africa has 8 countries participating in the specific research ecosystem. More specifically, South Africa seems to gain a respectful position among the most productive countries as it is a member of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS), and it increasingly becomes a significant player in the global economy (Rehman et al., 2023). The lack of international cooperation regarding the writing of research papers is also characteristic. Only the USA, Canada, Nigeria, South Africa, Jamaica and the UK have attempted a cross-national collaboration. It seems that the USA tends to collaborate with neighboring countries, just as African countries tend to cooperate with each other (Figure 2).

In the field, 728 unique researchers appear to have been engaged. Regarding author collaboration, we should mention that the specific field seems to be a lonely journey for researchers. The authors’ average collaboration is 1.67. The average level of cooperation appears to be considerably lower than that in other subfields of library research such as the digital libraries' domain, where the average collaboration is 3.38 authors per paper (Papachristopoulos et al., 2019). This low collaboration rate may indicate low interdisciplinarity, as a single author is a bearer of single-dimensional knowledge. This result probably confirms Slade’s results (2004). The latter mentioned in his research that the majority of researchers' types in distance libraries were presenting either institutional practices or opinions. From that perspective, 20 years after Slade’s work, the distance library domain seems to follow the same path.

Attempting to analyze the dataset from the perspectives of impact and productivity, we notice that although Dew S.H. ranks first in productivity, at the same time he is absent from the top-5 researchers according to the impact of their work (Table 2) [2]. In fact, he is in the sixth place of the ranking with the most impactful researchers. On the other hand, Croft R. (70 citations) and Casey A.M. (60 citations) have the most impactful works. It is noteworthy to mention that Gonzalez and Westbrock (2010) have the most impactful work in the domain, having only one contribution each (Table 2). Croft R. has a limited collaboration with other researchers, as he has collaborated with only two, while Cassey A. M. has been more collaborative, working with eight.

On the other hand, analyzing productivity at the institutional level, we notice that Central Michigan University (USA) has been at the top of the list with 19 contributions. Nova Southwestern University (USA), the University of Iowa (USA) and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (USA) have nine contributions, while the University of South Africa (SA) and Emporia State University (USA) have seven each. Noteworthy is the fact that the libraries of open universities are significantly absent. We also detected only five distance libraries that serve open universities. These universities are (a) The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, (b) the Hellenic Open University (Greece), (c) the Kota Open University (India), (e) the Allama Iqbal Open University (India) and (f) the Open University of Hong Kong. Among the institutions that contribute to the progress of the domain are not only libraries but also university departments. As mentioned earlier, while the contribution of institutions based in the USA in shaping the field is significant, it appears that the results of this research derive from the field of everyday workplace research rather than academic experimentation. The African contributions derive mainly from LIS university departments, with the University of South Africa and the University of Ilorin playing a nodal role, while at the same time there is only one European LIS department (Department of Archives, Library Science and Museology, Ionian University, Corfu, Greece). This finding is another indication that the specific scientific field is promoted mainly through everyday practice rather than academic focus.

4.2 Keywords analysis

The current research's main objective was to understand the map of the distance library service field through the keywords that the researchers have already used to describe their works. The author’s keywords were 1,052, but we excluded words that would not add any value to the interpreter as they are considered understood, since the subject area we are dealing with is already known (Figure 3). These keywords were “distance education,” “distance learning,” “libraries,” “library,” “library services,” “distance learners” and “distance library services.”

The most significant keyword clusters are 2 and include 37 keywords. The first one seems to represent research that combines HE and distance education issues with libraries and LIS science. In this group, we detect keywords such as “curriculum development,” “large scale learning,” “satisfaction surveys,” “quality assurance” and “higher education institutions,” among others. HE institutions offering distance learning programs have an inherent concern about how to support the information needs of their students. High-quality distance learning curricula should be based on an analogous high-quality services and resources provided by the library. This cluster could be characterized as an “Institutional perspective.” The second group of keywords represents the opposite perspective, the “user center” perspective. In this group, we detect keywords such as “adult learners,” “non-traditional students,” “mental models,” “academic achievements,” “student success,” “user research,” “self-directed learning,” “self-efficacy,” “first-year students” and “first-year experiences.” Libraries that serve distance learning institutions should be in line with adult learning mental models, and they should develop information literacy programs that would enhance distance learner autonomy.

The scholarly communication of the distance library field delves into the skills that staff should have to support distance education audiences. Through the use of the terms “distance education librarian” and “distance learning librarian” and the alternative “off-campus librarian,” the literature seeks to highlight a new professional profile. The above terms are accompanied by other professional concepts such as “career-paths,” “jobs,” “job trends,” “library careers” and “staff development.” It is obvious from the analysis of the above terms that a librarian working in a distance education institution follows a different career path compared to that of a traditional librarian. Additionally, we detected a cluster of keywords related to “organizational issues.” This group includes words related to organizational development, performance, project management, leadership and resistance to change (e.g. “strategic planning,” “resistance to change,” “leading change,” etc.).

The most popular keyword in the distance library scholarly communication ecosystem is “information literacy.” This keyword was detected in a group of words that combines both the virtuality of the tools to be used and the final goal: learning. The “information literacy” cluster includes words such as “educational learning engagement,” “faculty–librarian collaboration,” “online instruction” and “online teaching,” “virtual classrooms,” “web-based instruction,” etc. A closer look at the words included in this group leads us to the conclusion that beyond the tools that are now available – in order to reach learning – the collaboration between the library and the teaching staff is a crucial issue. Cooperation should not be taken for granted, as there are examples of distance libraries that show loose ties within the latter two poles (faculty-staff). But what about resources and acquisitions? Acquisitions in distance learning libraries are based on usage statistics (“demand driven acquisitions”), probably on “user surveys” or “reading lists,” while “copyright” is a constant issue. All the aforementioned keywords constitute the “resources” cluster.

There are also small clusters of words focusing on pedagogical approaches to library familiarization, including words such as “Jesuit pedagogy”, “Ignatian pedagogy” and “online library orientation.” Another interesting cluster is the group of words that focuses on accessibility issues that concern the field of distance library services, including “accessible instructions,” “accessible services,” “library instruction for distance services” and “online accessibility.” This means that distance libraries seek to make resources available to their audience that lacks geographical homogeneity and proximity.

An interesting issue that our research detected was the use of the word “marketing” in the specific scholarly ecosystem. The marketing-oriented keywords that have been included in the distance library services scholarly communication are “relationship marketing,” “empathetic marketing” and “online video marketing.” These words have a limited use, although the existing literature recognizes the problem of the lack of awareness of distance library services by distant learners (Atuase and Maluleka, 2022). On the other hand, what dimensions of their activities do distance libraries evaluate? From the keywords identified in the keyword network, it seems that they are concerned with evaluating their collections, the education programs they provide and the needs of their users. As Bonella et al. (2016) mention, a crucial aspect of assessment is also library’s marketing activities. From the keywords used and their interconnection, we can infer that not only is the issue of marketing underrepresented in our dataset, but it has not been approached from the perspective of evaluation. In fact, it seems that marketing-oriented papers reflect practices followed by the libraries.

4.3 Co-citation analysis

Another interesting aspect regarding the mapping of the distance library service field is the analysis of the resources and researchers who have contributed to its development. Sullivan et al. (1977, 225) characterize the co-citation analysis as the detection of “intellectual history” of a field. For this study, the articles included in our dataset were based on 9,165 citations. Their distribution is interesting, as highlighting the most popular sources may form the basis of study for future researchers. Our dataset tends to self-cite, as the most cited journals are “The Journal of Library Administration” (321 citations) and “The Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning” (249 citations) (Table 3). Among the most cited journals is the “Research Strategies,” which has been inactive since 2006.

The clustering of co-citations generated five clusters (Figure 4). The first cluster of journals includes those primarily concerned with learning and education (red subnetwork). In this group, we can find journals such as “Journal of Αsychronous Education,” “Open Learning,” “Internet and Higher Education,” “Journal of Distance Εducation,” “Educational Technology”, etc. It seems logical that these resources appear in the scholarly communication we study, since libraries are called upon to exploit not only infrastructures that serve distance education but also the learning models on which distance education is based. The second cluster includes journals such as “Journal of Library Administration”, “Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve” and “Journal of Academic Librarianship”. These journals focus on current trends in librarianship and library management (Green subnetwork). The third cluster has a leading journal which is obviously the “Journal of Library and Information services in Distance Learning” (yellow), while the forth cluster includes two of the most impactful resources for the “College and Research Libraries” and the “Reference Librarian”. Regarding the most effective authors on the formulation of distance libraries’ services scholarly communication, we noticed that the most cited author is Dr Johanna Tunon and Mary Cassner (Table 4).

Summarizing the findings of the bibliometric analysis, we should underline the fact that the subfield is American-driven and supported by some African initiatives. This limited participation of countries in the field of distance library scholarly communication leaves little room for an extended collaboration analysis. The limited extent of the distance library community affects also the impact of the scientific research of its members. While distance learning institutions are flourishing all over the world, their LIS aspect remains unexploited. Additionally, the content of the scientific publications included in the data set of the present research is not only related to information literacy and the methods of implementation of educational programs but also the general issue of library integration in learning practice. This analysis demonstrates the key role of distance libraries as a bridge between teachers and students. LIS issues should be integrated and highlighted in the distance learning agenda in order to facilitate the delivery of educational services.

5. Conclusions

Nowadays, the concept of distance education seems to lose its first component (distance) as distance becomes a reality. The new era of education includes all the methods and tools required to complete the process, regardless of geographical dispersion. As Larreamendy-Joerns and Leinhardt (2006) mention, “distance education has always been known for its departure from the conditions in which teaching and learning ‘naturally’ take place.” Considering that “we are all distant learners now” (Wheeler and Kyprianou-Chavda, 2021), we need libraries that have already redefined their role and have been adopted to the new challenges. It is a time for every conventional library, especially those that serve HE, to acknowledge the new challenges of admitting that “we are all distance libraries.”

The preceding analysis has highlighted the strong introversion of the field, since the sources on which scientific communication is based are limited, and it is also monopolized by researchers from America and Canada. Another issue that we should underline is the absence of the members of the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU) libraries. Only the Distance Library and Information Center of the Hellenic Open University (HOU) has a contribution to the scholarly communication field of the domain of distance library services. Although the association seems to be active, the library aspects tend to be dormant. It was also evident that scientific communication seems to be driven by daily working practice. The LIS academics tend to avoid including aspects of distance library services in their research agenda.

Since distance learning institutions do not encourage or promote the role of their libraries, it is evident that their actions will lag behind the teaching and technological issues. This behavior leads to both limited authorial production and consumption, since existing authorial initiatives are embraced by a limited community. Τhe limited face-to-face contact with the public does not also constitute a limited role for distance libraries. Acknowledging the role of libraries in distance learning will also enhance the impact of the relevant research.

Additionally, libraries that serve distance education should promote the annual “Distance Library Services Conference” not as another alternative scholarly communication venue but as the main interaction space of all libraries. The conference should follow a more international approach. Hosting the conference outside the USA will encourage other libraries that support distance education programs to submit their research activity and, above all, to collaborate with each other. American researchers seem to be more active, but the two journals of the dataset of our study and the “Distance Library Services Conference” should ameliorate their marketing activities in order to attract works having higher geographic disparity. Distance libraries should become more extrovert. Therefore, distance libraries should pursue a multi-level extroversion. At the first level, they should make their services and content known to the public. This process will be carried out with a specific plan (Harlow and Hill, 2020) and with people who have the appropriate background knowledge (Logan, 2019). On the second level, they will have to secure and establish their voice in scientific communication. These libraries are 'the old dogs that are able to teach conventional libraries new tricks'.

6. Implications for future research

There seems to be significant authorial inertia within the LIS community regarding distance libraries, and we have to delve deeper into this issue so as to understand the factors that lead to this phenomenon. Librarians working in this type of library should assess their perceptions of their work since there may be a latent devaluation of their role. It is likely that the lack of face-to-face contact with their users affects their attitudes regarding the quality of the work they produce. Additionally, the opinion of other members of the academic community of distance education institutions should also be assessed regarding the role of the library in the functioning of these institutions. The recording of these views will contribute to the redefinition of the role of distance libraries from the point of view of stakeholders. What are the factors that do not encourage a more dynamic integration of distance libraries into the learning process? What are the issues that are likely to push libraries to the margins of a distance learning curriculum? This redefinition will probably reposition distance libraries on the ecosystem of distance learning and simultaneously upgrade the whole subfield within the LIS community.

A future work would also delve into the textual data of these scientific products implementing machine learning techniques, like topic modeling, in order to disclose more latent topics lying in this corpus. The texts that describe distance libraries’ production may prove to be more volatile than their authors’ keywords.

7. Limitations

A literature review, while valuable for gathering and analyzing existing research in a particular field, may have certain limitations. We should consider it a snapshot of a part of scientific production at a specific period. For the needs of the specific study, we used works published in two dedicated scientific venues (Journal of Library Administration and the Journal of Library as the Off-Campus Library Services Conference/Distance Library Services Conference). The integration of other resources related to distance libraries will provide more solid and specific results.

Figures

Figure 1

Authors’ keywords of most cited papers

Figure 2

Cross-national collaboration

Figure 3

Keywords co-occurences

Figure 4

Co-citation network

Table 2

Top researchers according to their productivity and impact

Most productive			Most impactful
N	Name	Number of papers	N	Name	Citations
1	Dew, S.H.	12	1	Croft, R.	70
2	Casey, A.M.	10	2	Casey, A.M.	60
3	Pival, P.R.	8	3	Gonzalez, A.C.	55
4	Adams, K.E.	5	4	Westbrock, T.	55
5	Cassner, M.	5	5	Davis, C.	47

Source(s): Table by author

Table 3

The most cited journals

N	Source	Citations
1	Journal of Library Administration	321
2	Journal of Library and Information services in Distance Learning	249
3	The Journal of Academic Librarianship	223
4	College and Research Libraries	209
5	Reference Service Review	175
6	Internet Reference Services Quarterly	114
7	College and Research Library News	106
8	The Reference Librarian	98
9	Library trends	72
10	Research Strategies	72

Source(s): Table by author

Table 4

The most cited authors

N	Author	Citations
1	Tunon, J.	42
2	Cassner, M.	35
3	Seaman, J.	34
4	Shank, J.D.	33
5	Dewald, N.H.	30
6	Jiao, Q.G.	27
7	Garrison, D.R.	27
8	Onwuegbuzie, A.J.	25
9	Slade, A.L.	24
10	Mestre, L.S.	24

Source(s): Table by authors

Table A1

Most cited papers

Reference	Cited by
Gonzalez, A.C. and Westbrock, T. (2010) “Reaching out with LibGuides: establishing a working set of best practices”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 638-656, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2010.488941	55
Croft, R. and Davis, C. (2010) “E-books revisited: surveying student e-book usage in a distributed learning academic library 6 years later”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 543-569, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2010.488600	47
Mestre, L.S. (2010) “Matching up learning styles with learning objects: what’s effective?”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 808-829, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2010.488975	40
Courtney, M. and Wilhoite-Mathews, S. (2015) “From distance education to online learning: practical approaches to information literacy instruction and collaborative learning in online environments”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 261-277, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1038924	37
Catalano, A. (2014) “Improving distance education for students with special needs: a qualitative study of students’ experiences with an online library research course”, Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning, Vol. 8 Nos 1-2, pp. 17-31, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2014.902416	32
Betty, P. (2008) “Creation, management, and assessment of library screencasts: the regis libraries animated tutorials project”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 48 Nos 3-4, pp. 295-315, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820802289342	31
Ivanitskaya, L., Laus, R. and Casey, A.M. (2004) “Research readiness self-assessment: assessing students’ research skills and attitudes”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 41 Nos 1-2, pp. 167-183, available at: https://doi.org/10.1300/J111V41N01_13	31
Shaffer, B.A. (2011) “Graduate student library research skills: is online instruction effective?”, Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning, Vol. 5 Nos 1-2, pp. 35-55, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2011.570546	30
Clark, S. and Chinburg, S. (2010) “Research performance in undergraduates receiving face to face versus online library instruction: a citation analysis”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 530-542, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2010.488599	30
Baker, R.L. (2014) “Designing LibGuides as instructional tools for critical thinking and effective online learning”, Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning, Vol. 8, pp. 107-117, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2014.944423	29
Lietzau, J.A. and Mann, B.J. (2009) “Breaking out of the asynchronous box: using web conferencing in distance learning”, Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning, Vol. 3 Nos 3-4, pp. 108-119, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332900903375291	29

Source(s): Table by author

Notes

1. The Off-Campus Library Services Conference was renamed to Distance Library Services Conference at 2012.

2. We have excluded Jodi W. Poe as she is the Editor-in-Chief, and she has a constant contribution writing the editorial of each issue.

Appendix

Table 1

Nations’ productivity and impact

N	Country	Documents	Citations	Citation mean
1	USA	440	2,563	5.82
2	Canada	33	260	7.87
3	Nigeria	7	42	6
4	South Africa	7	42	6
5	India	4	16	4
6	Australia	3	6	2
7	Ghana	3	2	0.66
8	Jamaica	3	20	6.66
9	New Zealand	3	25	8.33
10	UK	3	13	4.33
11	Spain	2	1	0.5
12	Botswana	1	4	4
13	Egypt	1	2	2
14	Estonia	1	0	0
15	Greece	1	0	0
16	Hong Kong	1	0	0
17	Indonesia	1	4	4
18	Pakistan	1	3	3
19	Philippines	1	0	0
20	Swaziland	1	0	0
21	Tanzania	1	1	1
22	Uganda	1	5	5
23	United Arab Emirates	1	2	2

Source(s): Table by author