Subject dispersion of LIS research in Pakistan

Full text

Subject dispersion of LIS research in Pakistan
Mirza Muhammad Naseer
a,
⁎,KhalidMahmood
b
a
Institute ofSpace Technology, 1, Islamabad Highway, Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Department of Library and Information Science, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore, Pakistan
abstractarticle info
Available online 17 May 2014 A subject analysis of 5195 publications in library and information science (LIS)research in Pakistan over a period
of 62 years revealed that the majority of Pakistani LIS research focused on a few subject areas. Pakistani LIS
researchers gave little attention to many subjects and completely ignored others. More than a quarter
(26.72%) of the total items focused on “information treatment for information services”while 22% were related
to “libraries as physical collections.”Other areas with some attention included “industry, profession and educa-
tion”(12.32%) and “theoretical and general aspects of librariesand information”(11.40%). Researchers paid little
attention to “housing technologies,”“technical services in libraries, archives and museums,”and “management.”
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Researchers in different parts of the world focus on different topics,
and this is as true for researchers in the discipline of libraryand informa-
tion science (LIS) as it is for other disciplines. While studies have
explored the subject areas of LIS research in many different countries,
scant attention has been paid to Pakistan, where only a few studies,
and of limited scope, have been conducted. The present study fills this
gap by presenting a comprehensive subject analysis of the LIS research
literature in Pakistan since its independence in 1947, as published in a
wide variety of different formats (including articles, books, book chapters,
conference papers, theses, and reports).
2. Problem statement
Analyses of Pakistani LIS literature are not very common, and those
that exist are limited to only a part of literature. No one has presented
a comprehensive analysis. Such an analysis has the benefits of identifying
research gaps and areas needing attention, as well as highlighting areas
of strengths. This allows future LIS researchers to focus research efforts
more on problems faced by LIS practitioners and scholars in Pakistan.
This analysis also exposes readers to LIS research in a little-studied
country. Researchers in other countries or disciplines can use this study
to conduct similar studies to explore the subject dispersion in their
own setting, which will augment the existing body of knowledge.
The study focused on the following research questions:
•What are the major subject areas of interest in international and
Pakistani LIS literature?
•What is the subject dispersion of LIS research in Pakistan?
3. Literature review
3.1. International
A comparison of international LIS research trends by Rochester and
Vakkari (1997) showed that there was a significant difference in em-
phasis and research trends in Finland, Spain, Turkey, Australia, China,
and U.K. Strong interest in LIS services was commonly seen in LIS re-
search in Australia, Turkey, and U.K., while information seeking was
the most researched subject in Australia, Finland and U.K. Each country
had a different research profile. Similarly, Uzun (2002) examined the
status of LIS research in developing countries (DCs) and Eastern
European countries (EECs) as represented by papers published in
1980–1999 in 21 core LIS journals. Bibliometrics was found to be a
major topic of LIS research in both DCs and EECs. Only 7.9% of the arti-
cles studied were authored by scholars from DCs and EECs. During the
period of study the number of publications from China, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Botswana, Ghana, Kuwait and Taiwan increased while publica-
tions from India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Brazil and Poland decreased. Atten-
tion was being given to LIS research in Nigeria and Pakistan, but not in
China, Turkey and Taiwan. In a recent study, Blessinger and Hrycaj
(2010) identified 32 highly cited articles which influenced scholarly
communication in library and information science. They investigated
the major subject themes, journal distribution and authorship trends
of these articles. Two subject categories, research in librarianship/
Library & Information Science Research 36 (2014) 114–119
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mmnaseer@gmail.com (M.M. Naseer).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.10.005
0740-8188/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Library & Information Science Research

users (68%) and technology (22%), were the main areas of interest for
authors of highly cited articles. The study revealed that about 70%
of highly cited articles were published in two journals: Journal of the
American Society for Information Science (38%) and the Journal of
Documentation (31%).
3.2. North America
Zemon and Bahr (1998) examined the articles published in College &
Research Libraries and Journal of Academic Librarianship in 1986–1996
and concluded that college librarians contributed fewer articles to the
professional literature than their counterparts in universities. College
librarians wrote less often about technology, systems-related issues
and cataloging. Buttlar (1999) analyzed 61 library science and informa-
tion science dissertations submitted to 17 American Library Association
(ALA) accredited library schools in USA. Hefound that the major subject
area covered by these dissertations was related to public services.
3.3. Europe
Cano (1999) reviewed Spanish LIS research in 1977–1994 as
presented in 354 articles published in two Spanish journals. Results re-
vealed that the major areas of LIS research in Spain during this period
were information retrieval, LIS services, and studies of scientificand
professional communication, but there was a difference of focus in
each journal. Kajberg (1996) conducted a content analysis of LIS journal
literature published in Denmark in 1957–1986. The most popular
subject was individual libraries and national library systems while
cooperation, networks, and resource sharing were the least popular
themes among Danish authors.
3.4. Africa
Alemna (1996, 2001) foundthat the subject most researched by the
authors of the African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science
(AJLAIS) was information technology while traditional subjects such as
classification and cataloguing were of the least interest. Ocholla and
Ocholla (2007) carriedout an analysis of library and information science
research output in South Africa in 1993–2006, looking at articles
indexed in Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) and Thomp-
son Scientific Web of Science databases. They found that the major sub-
ject areas in South African LIS research were management, information
retrieval, and information services.
3.5. Asia
Huanwen's (1996) study of LIS research in China in 1985–1994
discovered that the major focus of Chinese LIS researchers was on
basic theory (contrary to the findings in other countries and interna-
tionally) and the most popular research strategy was the historical
method. The study reported that “the second most popular research
strategy in China was not applicable, or no method …This unexpected
finding indicates that many scaled researchers in LIS in China have not
mastered the methodologies of scientific research.”Thirteen years
later, Smith (2009) reported that 11 of 95 Chinese library schools
offered doctoral research programs. It would be interesting to explore
the impact of these research programs on LIS research in this area.
Other Asian studies found varying subject focuses. Management of
library and information centers was the most popular subject among
Malaysian authors (Yazit & Zainab, 2007) while legal issues and organi-
zation of information were the least popular. According to Khan,
Ahmed, Munshi, and Akhter (1998) the most popular subject among
Bangladeshi authors was general libraries. Library and information ser-
vice activities was found to be the most popular subject in professional
as well as research articles published in Turkish journals (Yontar &
Yalvac, 2000). Chandrashekara and Ramasesh (2009) carried out an
analysis of doctoraltheses to explore themajor areas of research activity
and output of Indian universities in library and information science. LIS
researchers at Indian universities mainly focused on bibliometrics/
scientometrics/informetrics and library management, while LIS educa-
tion and special libraries received less attention.
3.6. Pakistan
In Pakistani literature, very few studies have discussed the subject
dispersion of LIS literature, and the few that there are analyze only a
limited part of literature. Haider (1978) and Siddique (1992) found
that the majority of theses submitted to LIS schools in Pakistan were
of bibliographic nature (i.e. catalogues and bibliographies of LIS litera-
ture) while Mahmood (1996) discovered that the most popular subject
among authors writing on Pakistani librarianship in journals published
outside Pakistan was LIS education and research. Khan and Samdani
(1997) reported on an analysis of articles published in Pakistan Library
Bulletin (PLB) in 1968–1997. They found that the major subject of interest
for authors of PLB was academic libraries (13.04%), followed by informa-
tion technology (5.13%), library development (4.54%) and bibliographic
control (4.34%). Subjects like classification, book industry and trade,
education policies, and documentation were of the least interest (1.97%
each). The study revealed most (77.27%) of the corpus consisted of
descriptive studies.
Anwar and Saeed (1999) studied 251 items written by Pakistani
library professionals in 1969–1995 and indexed in LISA Plus. LIS educa-
tion and manpower and information technology applications (12%
each) were the most popular areas of interest while user education,
library legislation, and comparative librarianship attracted the least
interest. The most productive period was 1987–1989, and the least pro-
ductive was 1972–1974. Descriptive studies were dominant. The inves-
tigation also revealed that coverage of Pakistani literature in LISA Plus
was inadequate as it indexed an average of only 9.3 items per year.
Shadab (2009) provided a statistical analysis of Pakistan Library and
Information Science Journal (PLISJ) from 1968 to 2007. The results
showed that the most popular subject among the authors of PLISJ was
academic libraries. Similarly, Ismail (2009) presented an analysis of
library and information science research in the North West Frontier
Province of Pakistan (now renamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) from
1983 to 2009. The study of different types of libraries (university libraries,
public and national libraries, special libraries, college/school libraries, and
personal libraries) was the most popular area of research while the least
interest was shown in publishing, marketing, and resource sharing. In
general, LIS research was getting little attention in the province. All
formats of LIS research output studied (books, papers and theses) showed
a declining trend.
4. Procedures
The population for this study consisted of all documented LIS litera-
ture (including articles, books, book chapters, conference papers,
reports, and theses) produced in Pakistan by both Pakistani and foreign
researchers from 1947 to 2008. Pakistan became an independent state
in 1947, hence the starting date, and research study began collecting
data in 2009. Literature published in popular magazines and newspapers
was not included in the study, nor were general addresses to different
conferences and seminars, book reviews, editorials, interviews, messages,
resolutions, speeches, and votes of thanks. The finalpopulationcountwas
5195 items.
The JITA Classification Schema of Library and Information Science
(http://eprints.rclis.org/view/subjects/) was used for assigning different
subject categories. JITA is being used by E-LIS, an open repository for
e-prints in LIS. JITA contains 12 major subject categories further divided
into 135 subcategories. It is an LIS-specific classification scheme and
lists different aspects of LIS in detail. While other studies have not
115M.M. Naseer, K. Mahmood / Library & Information Science Research 36 (2014) 114–119

used JITA for this purpose, no other classification scheme has been used
consistently.
Bibliographic data were collected from printed andonline bibliogra-
phies, indexes, books and book reviews in professional journals, and
also by personal visits to different libraries and people involved in LIS
research. Items were assigned to the various subject categories and sub-
categories by the firstauthor of this study. Anitem was assigned to only
one subject category and one subcategory. One person completed the
task for consistent assignment of the categories. All items were regularly
reviewed during the whole process to remove any inconsistency. The
data were captured and manipulated in a purpose-built database, and
then transferred to Microsoft Excel for analysis of topics.
5. Results
5.1. Main categories
An overall summary (Table 1) shows that the most popular area of
research for Pakistani LIS professionals was information treatment for
information services (more than a quarter of the total items analyzed,
1388 items, 26.72%) followed by libraries as physical collections (1143
items, 22%). Industry, profession and education (640 items, 12.32%) and
theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information (592 items,
11.40%) also received considerable attention. These four subject areas
attracted 72.44% of the total output. Pakistani LIS researchers paid little
attention to housing technologies (62 items, 1.19%), technical services in
libraries, archives and museums (153 items, 2.95%) and management
(153 items, 2.95%).
5.2. Subcategory analysis
A more detailed look at the theoretical and general aspects of libraries
and information category (Table 2) reveals that most items were on
general aspects of libraries and information (331 items, 56%). Other
than general aspects, LIS as a field was an area of focus (161 items,
27%) while relationship of LIS with other fields (65 items, 11%) acquired
less attention. Information theory and library theory was the most
neglected topic.
In the category information use and sociology of information (Table 3),
the majority of research was in information needs and information re-
quirements analysis (64 items, 31.37%), use and impact of information
(40 items, 19.61%) and information in society (40 items, 19.61%). These
three sub-subjects together comprise 70.59% of the items produced.
Much interest was shown by master's students in information needs
and information requirements analysis as they submitted a number of
theses on this subject. Bibliometric methods as a topic was largely
ignored and Pakistani LIS researchers also did not pay much attention
to topics relating to information society,user interfaces,usability,and
information society.
Reading and storytelling was the most researched topic of the 199
items under the subject category users, literacy and reading (Table 4),
with 67 items (33.67%). Most of these were studies of reading habits
of different segments in society. There were also some items in the
sub-categories of user studies (24.12%) and use studies (19 items,
9.55%) but little research relating to literacy.
Libraries as physical collections was the second most preferred area of
research for Pakistani researchers; most of the items in this category
used descriptive research techniques and described the past and present
condition of different libraries (Table 5). Academic libraries was the larg-
est focal point of res earch (326 items, 28.52%) probably due to affiliation
of a large number of LIS researchers in Pakistan to academic institutions
such as library schools and university libraries. Other popular subcate-
gories were special libraries (198 items, 17.32%) and public libraries
(192 items, 16.80%).
The sub-category printing, electronic publishing, broadcasting (54
items, 31.76%) emerged as the major area of interest under the main
subject publishing and legal issues (Table 6), followed cl osely by book-
selling (51 items, 30%). A number of Pakistani LIS researchers (46 items,
27.06%) also discussed general aspects of publishing and legislation. The
area of intellectual freedom was never touched on, and censorship was
taken up only once despite the fact that for more than half of the period
under study censorship was widely known to be practiced by the
government.
Table 1
Subject dispersion of LIS research in Pakistan, 1947–2008.
Rank Subject Frequency
(n=5195)
% Cumulative
%
1 Informati on treatment for
information services
1388 26.72 26.72
2 Libraries as physical collections 1143 22.00 48.72
3 Industry, profession and education 640 12.32 61.04
4 Theoretical and general aspects of
libraries and information
592 11.40 72.44
5 Information sources, supports, channels 321 6.18 78.61
6 Information use and sociology of
information
204 3.93 82.54
7 Users, literacy and reading 199 3.83 86.37
8 Information technology and library
technology
170 3.27 89.64
9 Publishing and legal issues 170 3.27 92.92
10 Management 153 2.95 95.86
11 Technical services in libraries,
archives and museums
153 2.95 98.81
12 Housing technologies 62 1.19 100.00
Table 2
Distribution within theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information.
S. No. Subject Frequency %
1 None of these, but in this section 331 55.91
2 LIS as a field 161 27.20
3 Relationship of LIS with other fields 65 10.98
4 Information theory and library theory 35 5.91
Table 3
Distribution within information use and sociology of information.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n= 204)
%
1 Information needs and information requirements
analysis
64 31.37
2Informationinsociety 40 19.61
3 Use and impact of information 40 19.61
4 Information policy 16 7.84
5 Information dissemination and diffusion 16 7.84
6 Information economics 14 6.86
7 Bibliometric methods 8 3.92
8 Information society 2 0.98
9 None of these, but in this section 2 0.98
10 User interfaces, usability 2 0.98
Table 4
Distribution within users, literacy and reading.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n=199)
%
1 Reading and storytelling 67 33.67
2 User studies 48 24.12
3 User categories: children, young people,
social groups
34 17.09
4 User training, promotion, activities, education 29 14.57
5 Use studies 19 9.55
6 Literacy 2 1.01
7 None of these, but in this section 0 0.00
116 M.M. Naseer, K. Mahmood / Library & Information Science Research 36 (2014) 114–119

Management of libraries and information centers is an important
element of LIS services, however, LIS professionals in Pakistan contributed
only 153 items in this area (Table 7). A majority of these were related to
co-operation (61 items, 39.87%) and general aspects of library and infor-
mation management (37 items, 24.18%). Marketing,finance,andpersonnel
management received very little attention, and other areas received
almost none.
The category industry, profession and education was well represented
(640 items, 12.32%) and stood third in the ranking of subjects (Table 8).
A detailed analysis of this category revealed that different organisations
related to LIS were the largest focus (199 items, 31.09%), followed close-
ly by biographies of people related to the library andinformation profes-
sion (183 items, 28.59%). These two topics together attracted 59.68% of
the total contributionsin this category. Education in library and informa-
tion science also received good representation (113 items, 17.66%). Less
consideration was given to information industry,curricula aspects of LIS
education, and training for library and information professionals, and
none at all to software industry and computer and telecommunication
industry.
In the category information sources, supports, channels, analysis of the
321 items showed that print materials (79 items, 24.61%) and periodicals,
newspapers (78 items, 24.30%) received the most attention (Table 9).
This was to be expected, as it reflects library collections in Pakistan.
Rare books and manuscripts (49 items, 15. 26%) and general aspects of
information sources (47 items, 14.64%) were both well represented.
However, subcategories related to digital media received little or no
attention.
The most common subject area for LIS researchers in Pakistan during
the 62 years of study was information treatment for information services
(Table 10). The vast majority of the 1388 items in this category were in
cataloguing, bibliographic control, which alone attracted 1244 items
(89.63%). Little interest was exhibited in index languages, processes and
schemes (78 items, 5.62%) and reference linking (28 items, 2.02%), and
even less for all other subcategories.
The category of technical services in libraries, archives and museums
was badly neglected and only 153 items (2.95%) were contributed in
this category (Table 11). Most researchers who worked in this area
either discussed library and information services in general (56 items,
36.60%) or they focused on acquisitions of materials in libraries and
information centers (52 items, 33.99%). Pakistani LIS researchers
also showed some interest in the preservation of print library materials
(20 items, 13.07%).
Housing technologies emerged as the most neglected area of LIS
research in Pakistan, attracting 62 items in as many years (Table 12).
Almost half of the work done in this category (30 items, 49.18%) was
in planning, design, removal,specifically about different plans made for
the establishment or development of libraries in Pakistan. This was
followed by the sub-category library, archive and museum buildings
(19.67%). Remaining subcategories were largely ignored.
Table 5
Distribution within libraries as physical collections.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n=1143)
%
1 Academic libraries 326 28.52
2 Special libraries 198 17.32
3 Public libraries 192 16.80
4 None of these, but in this section 98 8.57
5Schoollibraries 91 7.96
6 Government libraries 54 4.72
7 Private libraries 47 4.11
8 Health libraries, medical libraries 37 3.24
9 National libraries 30 2.62
10 Archives 19 1.66
11 World libraries 18 1.57
12 Science libraries 14 1.22
13 Museums 11 0.96
14 Technical libraries 8 0.70
Table 6
Distribution within publishing and legal issues.
S.
No.
Subject Frequency
(n=170)
%
1 Printing, electronic publishing, broadcasting 54 31.76
2 Bookselling 51 30.00
3 None of these, but in this section 46 27.06
4 Intellectual property: author's rights, ownership,
copyright and copyleft
16 9.41
5 Mass media 2 1.18
6Censorship 1 0.59
7 Intellectual freedom 0 0.00
Table 7
Distribution within management.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n=153)
%
1Co-operation 61 39.87
2 None of these, but in this section 37 24.18
3 Finance 11 7.19
4 Personnel management 11 7.19
5 Marketing 11 7.19
6 Funding 6 3.92
7 Public relations 6 3.92
8 Reorganization 4 2.61
9 Local government 3 1.96
10 Unitary authorities 3 1.96
Table 8
Distribution within industry, profession and education.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n= 640)
%
1 Organizations 199 31.09
2Biographies 183 28.59
3Education 113 17.66
4Staff 54 8.44
5 Training 37 5.78
6 Curricula aspects 24 3.75
7 Information industry 21 3.28
8 None of these, but in this section 9 1.41
9 Computer and telecommunication industry 0 0.00
10 Software industry 0 0.00
Table 9
Distribution within information sources, supports, channels.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n=321)
%
1 Print materials 79 24.61
2 Periodicals, newspapers 78 24.30
3 Rare books and manuscripts 49 15.26
4 None of these, but in this section 47 14.64
5 CD-ROM 10 3.12
6 Archival materials 9 2.80
7 Audio-visual, multimedia 9 2.80
8 e-Resources 8 2.49
9 Microforms 7 2.18
10 Repositories 7 2.18
11 Databases and database networking 4 1.25
12 Web pages 4 1.25
13 e-Journals 2 0.62
14 Non-print materials 2 0.62
15 Online hosts 2 0.62
16 OPACs 2 0.62
17 Electronic media 1 0.31
18 Portals 1 0.31
19 e-Books 0 0.00
20 Gray literature 0 0.00
117M.M. Naseer, K. Mahmood / Library & Information Science Research 36 (2014) 114–119

Information technology and library technology is relatively a new area
of research for LIS in Pakistan (Table 13). Contributions were largely
spread across four subcategories: computers (53 items, 30.99%), informa-
tion technology in general (37 items, 21.64%), library automation systems
(19 items, 11.11%) and Internet, including WWW (18 items, 10.53%).
6. Discussion
The results of this study conform to some of the findings in the liter-
ature but also add new information about Pakistani LIS research. The
top-ranked categories are similar to those found among the top listed
in other studies, but activity in information technology, management
of library and information centers, and library and information service
activities is far less when compared to many other studies. One reason
for this might be the lack of qualified thesis supervisors in Pakistani
LIS programs in these topical areas.
Information theory and library theory was a neglected area in
Pakistani LIS research, which suggests that Pakistani LIS researchers
were not much interested in the theoretical research. On the other
hand, the major focus of Chinese LIS researchers was basic theory of
library and information science in 1985–1994 (Huanwen, 1996). It
may be thatPakistani LIS researchers are notyet confident in conducting
research and have not yet explored theoretical research. Similarly,
Pakistani researchers ignored bibliometric methods during the period
of study, whereas LIS research at Indian universities mainly focused on
bibliometrics. Bibliometric methods have not yet been widely adopted
by Pakistani researchers. Literacy and use studies were also ignored by
LIS researcher in Pakistan. Lack of social respect and of acknowledge-
ment of the work of library professionals, as well as a dearth of staff in
libraries, could be some of the reasons for this trend.
LIS researchers in Pakistan did not include studies of the software
industry and the computer and telecommunication industry, and
only some attention was given to the topic of information industry.
Pakistani LIS researchers may feel that these areas are properly part of
computer science, despite the fact that in many other countries these
are regarded as part of information science. Similarly, curricular aspects
of LIS education and training garnered less attention than expected. This
may be because Pakistani LIS curricula are seldom reviewed and hence
little work is done in this area. Also, the majority of active LIS re-
searchers are found in academic disciplinary units and are less likely
consider the training needs of practitioners in libraries.
7. Conclusion
This unique comprehensive subject analysis of all the LIS literature
produced in Pakistan between 1947 and 2008, has demonstrated that
LIS research in Pakistan has been limited to a few areas of research
and has neglected many others. This identification of research gaps
might serve as a call to action for research in more current (and perhaps
more practitioner- and user-oriented) fields, and also as a guide for
curricular development in LIS programs. Perhaps LIS schools could
establish systematic coordination for selection of topics for research to
avoid duplication of effort and to augment the research carried out in
this and other regions. Also, LIS schools, professional associations, and
others groups might arrange an active agenda of conferences, seminars,
workshops, and other gatherings to discuss the problems faced by the
LIS profession and in Pakistan, and highlight the importance of relevant
research as one strategy for exploring solutions. Finally, the methodology
used in this study can be applied to other regions and countries, which
will augment the existing body of knowledge about the global state of
LIS research.
Table 10
Distribution within information treatment for information services.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n=1388)
%
1 Cataloguing, bibliographic control 1244 89.63
2 Index languages, processes and schemes 78 5.62
3 Reference linking 28 2.02
4 Filtering 18 1.30
5 Content analysis 6 0.43
6 Information transf er: proto cols, for mats, tec hniques 4 0. 29
7 None of these, but in this section 4 0.29
8 Design, development, implementation and
maintenance
3 0.22
9 Information presentation: hypertext, hypermedia 2 0.14
10 Data and metadata structures 1 0.07
11 Image systems 0 0.00
12 Knowledge representation 0 0.00
Table 11
Distribution within technical services in libraries, archives and museums.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n=153)
%
1 None of these, but in this section 56 36.60
2Acquisitions 52 33.99
3 Paper preservation 20 13.07
4 Interlibrary loans 8 5.23
5 Serials management 5 3.27
6 Stocktaking 4 2.61
7 Record keeping 3 1.96
8 Circulati on 2 1. 31
9Documentdelivery 2 1.31
10 Digitization 1 0.65
11 Digital preservation 0 0.00
12 Withdrawals 0 0.00
Table 12
Distribution within housing technologies.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n=62)
%
1 Planning, design, removal 30 49.18
2 Library, archive and museum buildings 12 19.67
3 Resource centers 6 9.84
4Noneofthese,butinthissection 5 8.20
5 Furniture 4 6.56
6 Safety 3 4.92
7Architecture 2 3.28
8 Disaster planning 0 0.00
9Vehicles 0 0.00
Table 13
Distribution within information technology and library technology.
S. No. Subject Frequency
(n=170)
%
1 Computers 53 30.99
2 None of these, but in this section 37 21.64
3 Library automation systems 19 11.11
4 Internet, including WWW 18 10.53
5 Software 13 7.60
6 Computer networking 12 7.02
7 Database management systems 9 5.26
8 Automatic text retrieval 4 2. 34
9 Authentication, and access control 2 1.17
10 Intelligent agents 1 0.58
11 Search engines 1 0.58
12 Telecommunications 1 0.58
13 Automated language processing 0 0.00
14 Computer and network security 0 0.00
15 Digital cameras 0 0.00
16 Object-oriented DBMS 0 0.00
17 OPAC systems 0 0.00
18 Photocopiers 0 0.00
19 Scanners 0 0.00
20 Software methodologies and engineering 0 0.00
118 M.M. Naseer, K. Mahmood / Library & Information Science Research 36 (2014) 114–119

References
Alemna, A. A. (1996). The periodical literature of library and information in Africa:
1990–1995. International Information & Library Review,28,93–103.
Alemna, A. A. (2001). The periodical literature of library and information in Africa:
1996–2000. Information Development,17(4), 257–261.
Anwar, M. A., & Saeed, H. (1999). Pakistani librarians as authors: A bibliometric study of
citations in LISA-PLUS. Asian Libraries,8(2), 39–46.
Blessinger, K., & Hrycaj, P. (2010). Highly citedarticles in library and information science:
An analysis of content and authorship trends. Library & Information Science Research,
32,156–162.
Buttlar, L. (1999 ). Information sources in librar y and information science doctoral
research. Library & Information Science Research,21,227–245.
Cano, V. (1999). Bibliometric overview of library and information science research in
Spain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,50,675–680.
Chandrashekara, M., & Ramasesh, C. P. (2009, March). Library and information science
research in India. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Informa-
tion Education & Practice: Preparing information professionals for interna tional collabo-
ration, Japan, University of Tsukuba, 6-8 March 2009.
Haider, S. J. (1978). Status of library research in Pakistan. Libri,28(4), 326–337.
Huanwen, C. (1996, August). A bibliometric study of library and information research in
China. Paper presented at the 62nd IFLA General Conference—August 25–31, 1996,
Beijing. Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla62/62-huac.htm.
Ismail, M. (2009, June/July). Library and information science research in the North-West
Frontier Province of Pakistan. Paper presented at the 6th Pakistan Library Science
Conference on Library & Information Science Research in Pakistan: Challenges
& opportunities –June 28-July 2, 2009, Baragali.
Kajberg, L. (1996). A content analysis of library and information science serial literature
published in Denmark, 1957–1986. Library & Information Science Research,18,25–52.
Khan, M., & Samdani, R. A. (1997). Library resources and publishing: 50 years analysis.
Pakistan Library Bulletin,28(4), 29–39.
Khan, M. S. I.,Ahmed, S. M. Z., Munshi, N. U., & Akhter, N.(1998). Library and information
science literature in Bangladesh: A bibliometric study. Malaysian Journal of Library
and Information Science,3(2), 11–34.
Mahmood, K. (1996). Library and information services in Pakistan: A review of articles
published in foreign journals. International Information & LibraryReview,28,383–405.
Ocholla, D. N., & Ocholla, L. (2007, August). Research in libraryand information science in
South Africa: An analysis of journal research output from 1993–2006. Paper present-
ed at the World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conferenceand
Council, 19–23 August 2007, Durban.
Rochester, M., & Vakkari, P. (1997, September). International LIS research: A comparison
of national trends. Paper presented at the 63rd IFLA General Conference, August
31- September 5, 1997, Copenhagen.
Shadab, I. (2009). Pakistan Library and Information Science Journal: A bibliometric study
from 1968–2007 (Unpu blished master's thesis). All ama Iqbal Open University,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Siddique, M. (1992). Research in library and informat ion science in Pakistan. Khabar
Nama,3(1–2), 1–6.
Smith, K. (2009, March). Towards a research agenda for LIS in theEast and Southeast (SE)
Asian region: Some preliminary thoughts. Paper presented at the Asia-PacificConfer-
ence on Library & Information Education & Practice: Preparing information professionals
for international collaboration, Japan, University of Tsukuba, 6-8 March 2009.
Uzun, A. (2002). Library and information science research in developing countries and
Eastern Europe an countries: A b rief bibliomet ric perspecti ve. The International
Information & Library Review,34(1), 21–33.
Yazit, N., & Zainab, A. N. (2007). Publication productivity of Malaysian authors and insti-
tutions in LIS. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science,12(2), 35–55.
Yontar, A., & Yalvac, M. (2000). Problems of library and information science research
in Turkey: A content analysis of journal articles 1952-1994. IFLA Journal,26,
39–46.
Zemon, M., & Bahr, A. H. (1998). An analysis of articles by college librarians. College and
Research Libraries,59,421–43 1.
Mirza Muhammad Naseer is an assistant professor at the Institute of Space Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan. He received his doctoral degree in library and information science
in 2012 from University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. He has more than 21 years of
experience in management of academic and special libraries in public and private sectors.
KhalidMahmood has been a professor of library and information science at theUniversity
of the Punjab since 2005 and was president of the Pakistan Library Association (2012–
2014). Hecompleted his post-doctoralresearch at the Department ofInformation Studies;
Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
119M.M. Naseer, K. Mahmood / Library & Information Science Research 36 (2014) 114–119