Advertisement

Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?

  • Yu-Wei ChangEmail author
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

This study measured the proportion of articles by authors affiliated with library and information science (LIS)-related institutions and proportion of LIS authors in each journal using 3224 articles published in 75 journals in 2015 in the category of information science and library science as assigned by journal citation reports (JCR). Only 33.3% of journals published over half of their articles by LIS authors. Over half of authors affiliated with LIS institutions were identified in only 30.7% of journals. Library science-oriented journals had higher percentages of LIS authors and articles by LIS authors, followed by information science-oriented journals. Not all typical LIS journals were primarily contributed to by LIS authors. Additionally, 30 journals with a weak association to LIS research substantially explained the findings and tended to have higher impact factors. Lower ranks of typical LIS journals affect research rewards for LIS researchers when JCR impact factors are emphasized.

Keywords

Author Journals Journal citation reports Library and information science 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Center for Research in Econometric Theory and Applications (Grant No. 108L900204) from The Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan, and by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan, under Grant No. MOST 108-3017-F-002-003.

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2012). Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2206–2222.Google Scholar
  2. Abrizah, A., Noorhidawati, A., & Zainab, A. N. (2015). LIS journals categorization in the journal citation report: A stated preference study. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1083–1099.Google Scholar
  3. Aharony, N. (2012). Library and information science research areas: A content analysis of articles from the top 10 journals 2007–8. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 44(1), 27–35.Google Scholar
  4. Åströml, F. (2010). The visibility of information science and library science research in bibliometric mapping of the LIS field. Library Quarterly, 80(2), 143–159.Google Scholar
  5. Bavdekar, S. B., & Save, S. (2015). Choosing the right journal for a scientific paper. Journal of Association of Physicians of India, 63, 56–59. http://japi.org/june_2015/09_aow_choosing_the_right.pdf.
  6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, J. S., Kaye, I. D., Sebastian, A. S., Wagner, S. C., Morrissey, P. B., Schroeder, G. D., et al. (2017). The evolution of current research impact metrics. Clinical Spine Surgery, 30(5), 226–228.Google Scholar
  8. Buttlar, L. (1999). Information sources in library and information science doctoral research. Library and Information Science Research, 21(2), 227–245.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, Y. W. (2018a). Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1589–1613.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, Y. W. (2018b). Exploring the interdisciplinary characteristics of library and information science (LIS) from the perspective of interdisciplinary LIS authors. Library & Information Science Research, 40(2), 125–134.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, Y. W., & Huang, M. H. (2012). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 22–33.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, C., Li, Q., Deng, Z., Chiu, K., & Wang, P. (2018). The preferences of Chinese LIS journal articles in citing works outside the discipline. Journal of Documentation, 74(1), 99–118.Google Scholar
  13. Chou, C. P., Lin, H. F., & Chiu, Y. J. (2013). The impact of SSCI and SCI on Taiwan’s academy: An outcry for fair play. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 23–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9245-1.Google Scholar
  14. COPIOR. (2011). COPIOR journal list. Retrieved July 30, 2018, from http://www.copior.ac.uk/Journallist/tabid/158/Default.aspx.
  15. Dorta-González, P., Dorta-González, M. I., Santos-Peñate, D. R., & Suárez-Vega, R. (2014). Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 406–418.Google Scholar
  16. D’Souza, B., Kulkarni, S., & Cerejo, C. (2018). Authors’ perspectives on academic publishing: Initial observations from a largescale global survey. Science Editing, 5(1), 39–43.Google Scholar
  17. Dyment, J. E., & Potter, T. G. (2015). Is outdoor education a discipline? Provocations and possibilities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(3), 193–208.Google Scholar
  18. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.Google Scholar
  19. Gómez-Núñez, A. J., Batagelj, V., Vargas-Quesada, B., Moya-Anegón, F., & Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. (2014). Optimizing SCImago Journal & Country Rank classification by community detection. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 369–383.Google Scholar
  20. Gómez-Núñez, A. J., Vargas-Quesada, B., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2016). Updating the SCImago journal and country rank classification: A new approach using Ward’s clustering and alternative combination of citation measures. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 178–190.Google Scholar
  21. Gómez-Núñez, A. J., Vargas-Quesada, B., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Glänzel, W. (2011). Improving SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis. Scientometrics, 89(3), 741–758.Google Scholar
  22. Grzybowski, A. (2009). The journal impact factor: How to interpret its true value and importance. Medical Science Monitor, 15(2), SR1–SR4.Google Scholar
  23. Hessey, R., & Willett, P. (2013). Quantifying the value of knowledge exports from librarianship and information science research. Journal of Information Science, 39(1), 141–150.Google Scholar
  24. Huang, M. H., Wu, L. L., & Wu, Y. C. (2014). A study of research collaboration in the pre-web and post-web stages: A coauthorship analysis of the information systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 778–797.Google Scholar
  25. Janssens, F., Zhang, L., de Moor, B., & Glanzel, W. (2009). Hybrid clustering for validation and improvement of subject-classification schemes. Information Processing and Management, 45, 683–702.Google Scholar
  26. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? Bioscience, 55(5), 438–443. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1641/0006-3568%282005%29055%5B0438%3ADSCITI%5D2.0.CO%3B2.
  27. Levitt, J. M., Thelwall, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2011). Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1118–1129.Google Scholar
  28. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal–journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(5), 601–613.Google Scholar
  29. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348–362.Google Scholar
  30. Lopatovska, I., & Ransom, E. (2016). The state of L-Schools: Intellectual diversity and faculty composition. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(1), 18–35.Google Scholar
  31. Maier, G. (2006). Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals. Scientometrics, 69(3), 651–667.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, T., & Spencer, J. (1996). A citation analysis study of library science: Who cites librarians? College and Research Libraries, 57(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  33. Ministry of Science and Technology. (2018). Journal evaluation and core journals list. Retrieved July 30, 2018, from http://www.hss.ntu.edu.tw/en/model.aspx?no=497.
  34. Odell, J., & Gabbard, R. (2008). The interdisciplinary influence of library and information science 1996–2004: A journal-to-journal citation analysis. College and Research Libraries, 69(6), 546–565.Google Scholar
  35. Ortega, L., & Antell, K. (2006). Tracking cross-disciplinary information use by author affiliation: Demonstration of a method. College & Research Libraries, 67(5), 446–462.Google Scholar
  36. Paulus, F. M., Rademacher, L., Schäfer, T.A.J., Müller-Pinzler, L., & Krach, S. (2015). Journal impact factor shapes scientists’ reward signal in the prospect of publication. PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0142537. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142537&type=printable.
  37. Prebor, G. (2010). Analysis of the interdisciplinary nature of library and information science. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(4), 256–267.Google Scholar
  38. Pudovkin, A. I., & Garfield, E. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1113–1119.Google Scholar
  39. Qiu, L. (1992). A study of interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Evaluation, 2(3), 169–175.Google Scholar
  40. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Bruins, E. E. W., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2002). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54(3), 347–362.Google Scholar
  41. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.Google Scholar
  42. Sedighi, M. (2013). Interdisciplinary relations in some high-priority fields of science and technology: An analytical study. Library Review, 62(6–7), 407–419.Google Scholar
  43. Shao, J. F., & Shen, H. Y. (2012). Research assessment and monetary rewards: The overemphasized impact factor in China. Research Evaluation, 21(3), 199–203.Google Scholar
  44. Shaw, W. C. (2016). Examining the classification problem of JCR from the perspective of academic evaluation: A case study of the category of the “information science and library science.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  45. Shokraneh, F., Ilghami, R., Masoomi, R., & Amanollahi, A. (2012). How to select a journal to submit and publish your biomedical paper? BioImpacts, 2(1), 61–68. http://bi.tbzmed.ac.ir/Portals/0/BI-2012-2-1/Shokraneh-BioImpacts-2012-2-1.pdf.
  46. Sivertsen, G. (2016). Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, 107, 357–368.Google Scholar
  47. Thijs, B., Zhang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Bibliographic coupling and hierarchical clustering for the validation and improvement of subject-classification schemes. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1453–1467.Google Scholar
  48. Urata, H. (1990). Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan. Scientometrics, 18(3–4), 309–319.Google Scholar
  49. Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2016). Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1487–1506.Google Scholar
  50. Wang, F., & Wolfram, D. (2015). Assessment of journal similarity based on citing discipline analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1189–1198.Google Scholar
  51. Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 347–364.Google Scholar
  52. Weech, T. L., & Pluzhenskaia, M. (2005). LIS education and multidisciplinarity: An exploratory study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 46(2), 154–164.Google Scholar
  53. Wijewickrema, M., & Petras, V. (2017). Journal selection criteria in an open access environment: A comparison between the medicine and social sciences. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 289–300.Google Scholar
  54. Xu, F., Liu, W. B., & Mingers, J. (2015). New journal classification methods based on the global h-index. Information Processing and Management, 51, 50–61.Google Scholar
  55. Zhang, L., Janssens, F., Liang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2010a). Journal cross-citation analysis for validation and improvement of journal-based subject classification in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 82(3), 687–706.Google Scholar
  56. Zhang, L., Liu, X., Janssens, F., Liang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2010b). Subject clustering analysis based on ISI category classification. Journal of Informetrics, 4(2), 185–193.Google Scholar
  57. Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Glänzel, W. (2016). Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1257–1265.Google Scholar
  58. Zhang, L., Sun, B. B., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., Chen, L. X., & Huang, Y. (2018). Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: On the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists. Scientometrics, 117(1), 271–291.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Library and Information ScienceNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Center for Research in Econometric Theory and ApplicationsNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations