This study investigated if collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa. Library and Information Science (LIS) publication record of the 54 African countries was collected from the Web of Science. Five types of collaborations were analyzed; no, institutional, national, African and international collaborations. The result shows that only 4.43% of the research by LIS authors from Africa were funded while only 8.16% were published in Africa. The study further shows that the visibility of the articles was low as they attracted 0.67 citation per year. Single author papers declined by the year, while collaboration increased. Institutional collaboration was the most popular while intra-Africa collaboration was the least popular. Furthermore, articles that were funded, published outside Africa, and from intra-African and international collaborations were more cited. International collaborations where LIS authors from Africa were lead authors attracted less citations. The observable differences in citations received by different funding status, collaboration types, publication place and authors’ role were statistically significant. Though higher visibility and funding through international collaboration as revealed in this study is a positive incentive for authors from Africa to participate in international collaboration, it is important to also improve intra-African collaboration. Through strong intra-African collaboration networks, innovative research could be driven to solve some of the problems facing Africa. It was also recommended that structures that will promote intra-African and international collaboration should be provided with funding opportunities.
Library and Information Science Research collaboration Africa Research funding Research visibility Authors’ role
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Asubiaro, T. V. (2018). Research collaboration landscape of the university of ibadan biomedical authors between 2006 and 2015. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science,28(1), 17–31.Google Scholar
Bakare, M. O., Munir, K. M., & Bello-Mojeed, M. A. (2014). Public health and research funding for childhood neurodevelopmental disorders in Sub-Saharan Africa: A time to balance priorities. Healthcare in Low-Resource Settings, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/hls.2014.1559.Google Scholar
Nwagwu, W. (2008). Online journals and visibility of science in Africa: A role for African social science citation index. In Proceedings of the Conference on Electronic Publishing and Dissemination: “Putting African Journals On Line: Opportunities, Implications and Limits” (pp. 2–14). Dakar, Senegal.Google Scholar
Onyancha, O. B. (2007). LIS research in Africa: How much is it worth? A citation analysis of the literature, 1986–2006. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science,73(2), 95–108.Google Scholar
Onyancha, O. B. (2009). A citation analysis of Sub-Saharan African Library and Information Science Journals using Google Scholar. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science,19(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
Onyancha, O. B. (2011). Research collaborations between South Africa and Other Countries, 1986-2005: An informetric analysis. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science,21(2), 99–112.Google Scholar
Onyancha, O. B., & Maluleka, J. R. (2011). Knowledge production through collaborative research in sub-Saharan Africa: How much do countries contribute to each other’s knowledge output and citation impact? Scientometrics,87(2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0330-5.Google Scholar
Onyancha, O. B., & Minishi-Majanja, M. K. (2009). LIS education: Sub-Saharan Africa. In I. Abdullahi (Ed.), Global library and information science: A textbook for students and educators (pp. 108–132). Munchen: K.G. Saur Verlag.Google Scholar
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005a). Mapping the network of global science: Comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation,1(2), 185–208.Google Scholar