Search results

The study aims to assess the journal packing density (JPD) of the research journals published across different subject discipline at the global level. The concept of JPD is aimed to compute the average number of research articles published per volume or per issue of a research journal in any given subject discipline. The study also discusses about the leading research journals publishing countries and continents across the world and their average JPD. An attempt has also been made to identify the leading research counties having maximum JPD in any given subject discipline.

The study covers 27 major research subject disciplines widely popular all across the globe. To undertake the present study, data were retrieved from SCImago Journal and Country Ranking.

In all, 36,081 research journals were indexed by Scopus across 27 major subject disciplines at the global level till 2015. During the period 2013-2015, 11,023,122 research articles were published in 36,081 research journals across 27 major subject disciplines at the global level at an average of 101.84 research articles per journal per volume. This means the average JPD of the research journals at the global level is 101.84 research articles per journal per volume. Chemistry, physics and astronomy and multidisciplinary journals are the three leading subject disciplines to have the maximum JPD, namely, 266.66, 253.92 and 242.53 research articles per journal per volume. JPD of research journals published in the sciences is higher than the JPD of research journals published in the social sciences and humanities. Business, management and accounting, social sciences and arts and humanities are three subject disciplines having lowest JPD, namely, 44.26, 35.68 and 32.66 research articles per journal per volume, respectively. China, Ireland and The Netherlands recorded the highest average JPD in the research journals published from these counties, namely, 213.39, 178.44 and 135.31 research articles per journal per volume, respectively.

Countries from where a lesser number of research journals are indexed by the popular indexes, such as Scopus, Web of Science, etc., face greater pressure of publishing. To ooze out this pressure, there is need to index more and more research journals from these countries and that can be done only by improving and maintaining the research standard over a period.

The study is original and the first of its kind undertaken at the global level across all the major subject disciplines.

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.

This paper aims to map information literacy literature in social sciences and humanities published during the period of 2001-2012.

The data for the study are obtained from Scopus, accessible at www.scopus.com. Study used the Transformative Activity Index (TAI) and relative citation impact (RCI) to know the impact of most productive countries and prolific institutions. The SCImago Journal and Country Rank accessible at www.scimagojr.com/ was used to determine the SCImago Journal Rank and source normalized impact per paper.

The study found that 1990 documents originating from 79 countries were published in this study area. These papers are published in 160 journals with an average ∼12.51 papers per journal. These papers have been cited 10,025 times with ∼5.0. average citations per publication. Study also found that information literacy literature is published in 16 languages and the majority of the papers are in English, 1,879 (94.4 per cent). The highest growth of publications (106.7 per cent) was found in 2005. The USA contributed the highest number, 1,035 (52 per cent) papers. Moreover, of the 15 most productive countries, three recorded TAIs >100, and 12 countries recorded TAIs <100. In all, 160 institutions worldwide have contributed in information literacy research. Study also found that maximum literature published on the subject by a single author is 828 (41.6 per cent). Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain has produced the highest number of papers (24, or 1.2 per cent) and received 61 (0.6 per cent) citations, while University of Strathclyde has the highest RCI (∼2.7) for its publications. Pintos, María from Universidad de Granada has published the maximum number of papers (18) that have been cited 78 times.

The study endeavors to showcase information literacy research outcomes in social sciences and humanities. It involves quantitative analysis of the literature in this domain using bibliographic elements such as keywords, authors, affiliation, publication and citations.

No study has been conducted so far to map the information literacy literature in social sciences and humanities. Study will be useful in understanding the progress on information literacy in the area of social sciences and humanities. The study is significant for social scientists to foster further research in this emerging area.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the emergence of specialized journals has affected management accounting research paradigms. Articles published in eight leading accounting journals from 1991 to 2000 are analyzed using Shields’ (1997) classification schemes. The study reports two major findings. One is that the overall percentage of management accounting research published in five non-specialized accounting journals has remained relatively constant since the establishment of three specialized journals oriented to management accounting research. The other is that the editorial boards of specialized journals appear to have broader interests in research Topics, to be more flexible with regard to research Methods, and are more willing to accept manuscripts adopting various Theories. Overall, the results of this study support that the emergence of management accounting research journals impacted research paradigms gradually during the 1990s.

This chapter examines the trends in published comparative and international education research from 2014 to 2019 with a special focus on 2019 publication in open access journals and by authors situated in the Global South. In particular, two trends from 2019 are (1) the increasing number of research publications in the field of comparative and international education that are being published in online, open access journals and (2) the representation among these research publications between authors situated in Global North versus Global South contexts. Evidence from the six years of data collection suggests that single country studies and qualitative methods continue to dominate published research in comparative and international education journals. 2019 data also show that there are significant different in the publication trends in subscription versus open access journals in the field, and that authors from the Global South are more likely to publish in open access journals, especially if they are female.

This paper aims to investigate the current status of research output published in open access (OA) journals from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) countries from 2010 to 2019 and compare their performances in terms of OA research output.

Papers contributed by the researchers of BRICS countries were searched using an advanced search option in the Web of Science core collection database. The retrieved results were restricted to the “journal articles” published in the “English language” during the time period of 2010 to 2019. After that, the selected papers were again refined by using the “open access” section to identify the research output of BRICS countries published in OA journals.

Total 2,219,943 papers were published from BRICS countries, out of which 402,199 articles were published in OA journals and South Africa has published the highest number of research output in OA journals (31%). Although, there has been a constant increasing growth of research output published in OA journals in BRICS countries from 13,300 papers in 2010 to 82,310 articles in 2019. Engineering and Technology have published the maximum number of papers in OA journals. Researchers of BRICS countries mostly contributed their OA research output in journals published from the USA and Scientific Reports (UK) is identified as one of the leading OA journals. Additionally, among all the BRICS countries, China is found as the promising leader in terms of OA journals publications, the maximum share i.e. 71.25 per cent of total 402,199 OA journal publications have been produced by the highest number 137 (23.41%) of institutions of China and Chinese Academy of Sciences (China) is leading institution with 39,036 papers published in OA journals.

This study is limited to BRICS countries, but it offers theoretical implications for extending its scope to different countries. This study may be used for raising awareness of OA among researchers of BRICS countries and encouraging them to contribute their research work in OA journals. The findings of this study are useful and meaningful in understanding the comparative status of research across countries, disciplines, journals and institutions.

This is the first study in BRICS countries focusing on the research output published in OA journals.

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.

This paper aims to the identification of journal articles that probably report on interdisciplinary research at Wageningen University & Research (WUR).

For identification of interdisciplinary research, an analysis is performed on journals from which articles have been cited in articles (co-)authored by WUR staff. The journals with cited articles are inventoried from the reference lists of the WUR articles. For each WUR article, a mean dissimilarity is calculated between the journal in which it has been published and the journals inventoried from the reference lists. Dissimilarities are derived from a large matrix with similarity values between journals, calculated from co-occurrence of these journals in the WUR articles’ reference lists.

For 21,191 WUR articles published between 2006 and 2015 in 2,535 journals mean dissimilarities have been calculated. The analysis shows that WUR articles with high mean dissimilarities often are published in multidisciplinary journals. Also, WUR articles with high mean dissimilarities are found in non-multidisciplinary (research field-specific) journals. For these articles (with high mean dissimilarities), this paper shows that citations are often made to more various research fields than for articles with lower mean dissimilarities.

Identification of articles reporting on interdisciplinary research may be important to WUR policy for strategic purposes or for the evaluation of researchers or groups. Also, this analysis enables to identify journals with high mean dissimilarities (due to WUR articles citing more various research fields). Identification of these journals with a more interdisciplinary scope can be important for collection management by the library.

The purpose of this paper is first, to develop a methodological framework for conducting a comprehensive literature review on an empirical phenomenon based on a vast amount of papers published. Second, to use this framework to gain an understanding of the current state of the enterprise resource planning (ERP) research field, and third, based on the literature review, to develop a conceptual framework identifying areas of concern with regard to ERP systems.

Abstracts from 885 peer‐reviewed journal publications from 2000 to 2009 have been analysed according to journal, authors and year of publication, and further categorised into research discipline, research topic and methods used, using the structured methodological framework.

The body of academic knowledge about ERP systems has reached a certain maturity and several different research disciplines have contributed to the field from different points of view using different methods, showing that the ERP research field is very much an interdisciplinary field. It demonstrates that the number of ERP publications has decreased, and it indicates that the academic interest in ERP is driven by an interest in an empirical phenomenon rather than that ERP is a new research discipline. Different research topics of interest are identified and used in developing a conceptual framework for “areas of concern” regarding ERP systems. Finally the usefulness of the framework is confirmed by analysing one specific aspect of ERP research; business process reengineering (BPR) to establish which theories different authors and journals have used in their efforts to explore BPR and ERP.

The findings of the literature study, the structured methodological framework for comprehensive literature review and the conceptual framework identifying different areas of concern are believed to be useful for other researchers in their effort to obtain an overview of the evolution of the ERP research field and in positioning their own ERP research.

The paper provides guidance for researchers with insight into what has been published, where to publish ERP‐related research and how to study it, and in positioning their own interest in ERP systems in the interdisciplinary research field. Access to the EndNote database containing bibliographical data of more than 880 papers can be used in future research and literature analysis. For managers, the conceptual framework can be useful in increasing their understanding of the complexity and areas of concern with regard to the ERP system.

The paper presents a structured methodological framework for analysing a vast amount of academic publications with an interest in an empirical phenomenon, demonstration of how academic interdisciplinary interest in ERP has evolved over time and reached a certain amount of maturity and a conceptual framework of areas of concern with regard to ERP systems.

This chapter provides an examination of the characteristics of comparative and international education research published in 2020 as well as an overview of the trends in this research since 2014. This analysis of published research includes a special focus on authors situated in the Global South as well as those authors who are affiliated with organizations outside of academic (i.e., professional, non-teaching organizations). These two focus characteristics reflect the shifting composition of authors and research in comparative and international education in the twenty-first century as well as the professionalization aspirations of the field of comparative and international education more broadly. Evidence from the seven years of data collection suggests that there is a marked shift toward increasingly more co-authored research, a shift from predominantly qualitative methods to non-empirical research content, and a rise in topic oriented research over the otherwise dominant single-country study in comparative and international education research.