Search results

The paper analyses the use of library and information science (LIS) journals (electronic and paper) in two developing countries, i.e. Malaysia and Pakistan.

The paper is based on the results of a survey distributed to a population consisting of two sets of LIS journal users. The targeted group includes two sets of graduate students from Departments of Library and Information Science, each in an academic institution from one of the two countries.

LIS journals have as their objective the provision of guidance in the education and learning process of LIS students and the provision of leadership in the practice of librarianship. The profession needs to have a heightened awareness of LIS journals and requires fast and easy access to this body of literature. For developing countries this objective can only be met through help of developed nations who can provide improved means to access LIS journals more efficiently and more effectively in both paper and electronic format.

The results of this study did not take in a large population of LIS journal users, but they do provide ground for further research in this area.

The results of the survey questionnaire provide a better understanding about the usefulness of LIS journals as an educational tool and their contribution towards development of librarianship in both countries.

There is comparatively little written on the use of LIS journals in developing countries. This paper helps fill that gap. The choice of a comparison between two contrasting developing countries' use of the literature is particularly useful, because the contrast throws into sharper relief the appropriate actions that should be taken to meet user needs.

This study aims to investigate the research and citation impact of open access (OA) journals versus non-OA journals being published in the spectrum of library and information science (LIS) across the world and to further ascertain whether OA journals have greater citation counts than subscription-based journals in LIS discipline.

A total of 116 LIS journals (58 OA and 58 non-OA) were chosen from Scimago website. After selecting the journals, Publish or Perish software program was used to retrieve the publications and their corresponding academic citations by using International Standard Serial Number of journals from Google Scholar for the period of 2011–2018. The non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test was applied on various research and citation indicators, namely, citation count, citations per author, citations per paper; g-index, h-index, hI norm and hI annual through SPSS.

Findings of the study demonstrate that non-OA journals in LIS have a significant citation advantage over OA journals. Moreover, Mann–Whitney U-test analysis rejected all the eight null hypotheses and reveals that non-OA journals in LIS discipline have greater citation counts, citations per author, citations per paper; g-index, h-index, hI norm and hI annual than OA journals.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that embarks upon a whole-scale investigation of citation impact of OA and non-OA journals in LIS, which has implications for both research and practice. This study would serve as a reference guide to all involved in scholarly communication activities including academic communities, librarians, research funders, publishers and policymakers for publishing research work, grant funding, designing policies and subscriptions.

This study aims to establish an idea on visibility and growth of research publications of select Library and Information Science (LIS) open access journals indexed in Scopus database during the period 2001-2015.

The study covers its scope to the research publications published during the period 2001-2015. All retrieved data were analyzed using bibliometric methods. The data of the select journals were searched in Scopus database using the name of the journal as search term in source of the database.

The results of the study reveal that visibility of LIS research articles in country based, university/ institution based, types of document based, authors based and citation based is significant. Authors from 83 countries and 990 universities/ institutions across the world have published their research in such LIS open access journals. The American and European countries are the leaders among all contributing countries and “Article” is the most popular types of documents with 61.37 per cent publications. The citation impact of publications shows an average 8.08 citations per publication.

The study raises concern on the global visibility of LIS research publications. Authors from underdeveloped countries do not prefer to publish their publications in open channel. Also government and other research bodies of these countries do not give proper weightage to the publications in open access journals. So, the study intends to assess the visibility of LIS research publications and their growth pattern.

The purpose of this paper is to report results of a study which investigated the growth of open access (OA) journals across the world with reference to the Asian region. Details of 117 OA journals were collected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to determine the geographic distribution, language of publication and growth of periodical year-wise. The study makes detail analysis of four OA periodical published from India, Iran, Pakistan and Taiwan. Pattern of authorship and contribution according to nature of professional work were analyzed. The study reveals that most contributions were made by teaching professionals in comparison to working library and information officers. Single-authored contributions dominated (44 per cent) in all periodicals of the Asian region, indicating low amount of teamwork/collaborative contributions to library and information science (LIS) research by the authors of this region. To know the subject distribution of articles, the study was limited to 27 subfields within the broad spectrum of LIS. Annals of Library and Information Sciences (ALIS) published in India carried the highest number of articles (165) followed by Journal of Library and Information Sciences (JLIS) from Taiwan. The findings of the study also indicate that there is varied distribution of topics within the Asian LIS literature published in OA journals. Most popular areas of writing among authors in OA journals have been found to be bibliometics, webometrics, research productivity or research methods besides information seeking pattern, information need of users and digital libraries.

To gather data for the present investigation, survey of OA e-journals was made across the Web. The collection of data from OA journals and content was accompanied by searching the DOAJ. After selecting the OA journals, these were analyzed using the descriptions on their content page and key words chosen from each contribution. Selection of additional key words, i.e. words not in the title, was also made. Analysis of this data is discussed in this paper.

OA removes restrictions that exist on access to scholarly information and knowledge, it empowers the readers to read, download, distribute and make use of relevant literature, besides giving authors and their work fairly good visibility, readership and impact. The OA movement is gaining importance and the scholarly community is now realizing that tolled or subscribed access is creating a barrier and preventing their work from wider accessibility and readership. A number of journals across the world are now being published in OA mode. The present study attempts to map the growth of LIS literature in OA journals with special reference to periodicals published from Asian countries. The finding of this sample study suggests that many counties are promoting OA journals. While USA ranks first in publication of OA journals in the world. Taiwan publishes the highest number of articles in Asia. Majority of OA journals are published in English, and English appears to be most popular language for communicating research information. Of the four OA LIS journals analyzed in detail, it is observed that single-authored contributions are most popular. Collaborative contributions to LIS research were not so evident among authors of the Asian community. The teaching professionals or LIS teachers contributed the greatest number of articles, except for the Indian journal ALIS, demonstrating that working professional are more actively involved in writing and they outnumber the teaching community. Contributions from research students in all OA journals have been fairly significant. Research students may be encouraged to publish their master’s and doctoral research work in OA periodicals for better visibility, readership and impact. The study further reveals that ALIS from India and JLIS from Taiwan carried the highest number of articles. While areas like bibliometrics, webometrics and e-resources and OA are most popular areas of writing among Indian authors, information-seeking pattern, information need, digital and virtual libraries have been popular among authors from Taiwan. Webology from Iran has predominant articles on Web study or evaluation and social networking. Universities and LIS need to come forward to take a need-based approach to LIS research, suggesting ways for improving existing LIS services in their respective countries. To get the correct picture of growth of OA journals in the Asian region, more exhaustive and extensive study may be required. Researchers interested to carry further investigation will have to adopt appropriate measures to overcome the limitations mentioned in the study, for example, the source of data DOAJ may not be very extensive to give correct picture of OA journals. It is likely that some journals may not have been included in this directory. Researchers interested to carry further investigations will have to adopt appropriate measures to overcome these constraints.

Scope and limitation access to data and timely completion are the two vital factors for the success and accomplishment of the objectives of any investigation. Hence, considering the vast range of literature from every geographical region and limited time to complete research, the present study adhered to the following limitations. The study covers in its scope literature published in the period of five years (accessed from March 28 to May 25, 2011, only). The study includes only those publications/journals contributed by authors in English. The study includes four OA journals having full-text articles in English, abstracts not included. It considers those publications primarily inclined and relevant to library and information services. The study includes only those OA LIS journals listed or included in DOAJ.

The present study has been taken with view to analyze the growth of OA journals in LIS with special reference to Asian countries. While several studies have been conducted on growth and publishing of traditional LIS journals, the present study is perhaps an interesting attempt to make a comprehensive review of the phenomena. The finding of the recent study will be of interest to many LIS professionals, researchers and academicians as it demonstrate the growth of OA journals.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the place of knowledge management (KM) in library and information science (LIS) research. The authors looked for KM articles published in top LIS journals since 2000.

The authors analyzed publication trends and the distribution of articles by KM-related terms used, region/country and information-setting type. The authors also identified the top-cited KM articles published in these LIS journals.

In total, 672 KM-related articles (only 3.84%) were found within the 17,491 articles published in these LIS journals.

This low percentage shows that while it might seem like LIS people are advocating for KM in libraries and other information settings, the authors find that despite the synergies, KM is yet to find a broader place within other LIS concerns.

Research published during the past two decades has frequently discussed how KM is important for libraries and for LIS. However, the authors do not know the extent to which KM forms a part of LIS research.

The main objective of this paper is to highlight and discuss issues, innovations and imperatives related to the management of professional library and information science (LIS) journals in Africa.

The strategy adopted was to preface the concerns about the quality of journals from Africa and then synthesize managerial issues that must be resolved to enhance quality. The next approach was to draw up a ten‐step plan of innovative ways to enhance the quality of (LIS) journals in Africa. Finally, the paper discusses eight critical imperatives related to effective management of African LIS journals.

The major concerns are that the continent's LIS journals are substandard, suffer high mortality and hardly appear regularly. Issues to be addressed to stem this tide of affairs include increased subscription spread, revenue base and the development of scholarly content. The paper argues that African LIS journals will continue to die young if innovative strategies are not injected to rejuvenate them.

The developments in the foreground indicate a better and brighter future for African professional LIS journals. African LIS journal managers must work towards financial independence, introduce or continue the review process, design scholarly content and strive for international competitiveness.

Probably the most comprehensive articulation of the challenges and opportunities facing LIS journal publishing in Africa.

This study aims to find out the average journal packing density (JPD) of Library and Information Science (LIS) research journals published across the world. The concept, JPD, means the average number of research articles published by a research journal in one volume. Accordingly, the undergoing study evaluates the average number of research articles published in each volume of each research journal published in the field of LIS at the global level. Some other key aspects evaluated include the number of LIS research journal publishing countries, average JPD of LIS research journals at the continental level, etc.

This study is purely based on secondary data retrieved from SCImago, which is SCOPUS data. Keeping in view the objectives of this study, the data about research articles published in all LIS research journals during the period 2015 through 2019 were retrieved to undertake the study.

From the data analysis, it emerged that 256 research journals duly indexed by SCOPUS are published in the field of LIS across 36 countries. In all 48,596 research articles were published from 2015 to 2019 in these research journals at an average of 44.71 research articles per journal per volume. More than 75% of LIS research journals are published from Germany, Spain, Netherlands, the USA and the UK. Research journals published from the USA have higher JPD of 53.09 research articles per journal per volume, which is 18.74% higher than the average global JPD of LIS research journals. 50% of LIS research journal publishing countries are from Europe and the majority 52.55% LIS research articles were published in European LIS research journals. The average JPD of LIS research journals published from North America is 51.73 research articles per journal per volume, which is the highest across continents.

Standardization of JPD of research journals irrespective of the subject discipline they are published in is important for many reasons and the foremost being, such standardization helps in keeping at bay the predatory research journals, which normally float such packing density norms, with the sole aim to earn money in the shape of manuscript handling charges, thereby publishing a far greater number of research article in each issue of a journal than the average research articles published by a research journal.

Very few studies have been conducted around the concept JPD, especially by the authors of this particular study. This study has however been particularized to the LIS subject discipline, while the findings add to existing lot of study already undertaken, hence outcome can be generalized.

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals.

The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey.

It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half‐life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal.

This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply.

The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

This study aims to find out the India’s research contribution to world Library and Information Science (LIS) literature from 2011 to 2020. Attempt has been made to reflect both the number of research articles published by the Indian LIS researchers during the past decade and the percentage share of Indian LIS researchers to the world LIS literature. Attempt has also been made to reflect the 20 leading LIS researchers from India, 20 leading LIS journals in which Indian LIS researchers mostly prefer to publish their research results and leading LIS research institutions and more.

The scope of the study is limited to library and information research undertaken across the world in general and India in particular during the past decade, viz., 2011–20. To undertake the present study, data were retrieved from SCOPUS data source. The data were retrieved keeping in view the objectives of the study; accordingly, key words were framed and used to search the relevant data.

Overall 77,659 research articles were published in the subject discipline of LIS across the world during the past decade, viz., 2011 through 2020. During the period of study, LIS researchers from India contributed 3,562 research articles constituting 4.59% of the total global LIS research output. The USA emerged the leading LIS research country with 33.03% research contribution, while India emerged as the fifth largest LIS research country in the world. A total of 12.85% research articles from India were contributed by 20 leading researchers. Only two LIS research journals from India were found indexed in the SCOPUS, in which 18.10% research articles were published by Indian LIS researchers during the period of study. More than 80% research results produced by Indian LIS researchers were published in foreign LIS research journals, mostly published from the USA and the UK. A good lot of Indian LIS researchers prefer to publish their research results in open access research journals. Library professionals, teachers and scholars from University of Delhi and University of Kashmir were found more active in LIS research in India.

India is one of the world’s popular LIS academic, research and practicing country and has more responsibility toward world LIS research, whereby India, apart from fulfilling its own LIS research requirements, has to meet out the global LIS research demand. Thereon, if it lacks on research front, which otherwise acts as a backbone in the survival of a subject discipline, the survival of subject discipline may become difficult.

India is one of the most progressive LIS research countries in the world and is about to play a far greater role in propagating newer and modern library practices and services in the years to come.

Quantification of research output at regional level or country level is very common among LIS professionals; accordingly, the existing study adds to existing world LIS literature about the India’s contribution to world LIS research during the past decade.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate UK academics’ views of the importance and prestige of journals relevant to library and information science (LIS) teaching and research.

A questionnaire, based on one used previously in the USA, was sent to UK academics involved in LIS teaching and research. The questionnaire asked respondents to rate the importance of 87 LIS journals, to suggest others that were of importance to them but that were not amongst the 87, and to identify the five most prestigious journals for promotion purposes. In addition, those journals were identified that had figured in institutional submissions to the LIS Unit of Assessment in Research Excellence Framework (REF).

While there was a fair measure of overall agreement between US and UK rankings of the 87 journals, with both highlighting the standing of the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology and of the Journal of Documentation, some substantial differences were also noted. Evidence is presented for a strong locational component to academics’ assessments of journal prestige, and analysis of the REF2014 submissions demonstrates the highly inter-disciplinary nature of LIS research in the UK.

The sample size is small, comprising 30 completed responses.

This is the first study to report UK academics’ rankings of LIS journals, and to compare those with comparable data for US academics.