Content uploaded by Rahul Kumar Singh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rahul Kumar Singh on Jan 01, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
57
DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan 2022, pp. 57-63, DOI : 10.14429/djlit.42.1.17480
2022, DESIDOC
Received : 03 September 2021, Revised : 10 October 2021
Accepted : 10 December 2021, Online published : 28 December 2021
A Bibliometric Study of Papers Published in Library and Information Science
Research during 1994-2020
K.C. Garg#,* and Rahul Kumar Singh$
#National Instiute of Science Technology & Development Studies (CSIR‐NISTADS), New Delhi - 110 012, India
$Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi - 110 011, India
*E-mail: gargkc022@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The paper analysed 699 papers published in Library & Information Science Research (LISR) during the period
of 1994-2020. Google Scholar was used to obtain the number of citations received by these papers until April 30,
2021. The study examined the geographical distribution of published articles and also identied prolic institutions
and authors. The study examined the impact of output of countries, institutions and authors using citation per paper
(CPP) and i-10 index as indicators of impact. The study also examined the pattern of growth and identied the
highly cited papers. Based on the analysis of data it is observed that maximum articles were published during the
three years block of 2015-2017. The geographical distribution of output indicates that 51 countries contributed the
699 papers. Highest number of papers was contributed by authors from the USA though it had a low value of CPP
in comparison to Norway and Finland. Among the institutions, Florida State University (USA) topped the list.
However, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA had the highest value of CPP. During the period of
study, 1,389 papers received 74,061 citations, of which only 41 (3 %) articles remained uncited.
Keywords: Bibliometrics; Scientometrics; Citation analysis; i-10 index; Library & Information Science
Research
1. INTRODUCTION
Primary journals are the most important channels of
scholarly communication. These reect the issues of importance
to a eld of study and a profession. Papers published in primary
journals are the indicators of literature growth in any particular
eld of knowledge and facilitate in making an in-depth study of
a discipline in its entirety. Bibliometric analysis can be used at
dierent levels like countries, institutions, authors and journals.
It can also serve to identify collaborative patterns among
dierent actors like countries, institutions and authors. A large
number of primary journals are published in the discipline
of library and information science (LIS) from dierent parts
of the world by dierent publishers. Library & Information
Science Research is a prestigious primary journal in the eld
of LIS, published by Elsevier (USA) and has published 42
volumes till 2020. It is a cross-disciplinary and double blind
peer reviewed journal. According to the information available
on the website of the journal https://www.journals.elsevier.
com/library-and-information-science-research, the journal
“focuses on the research process in library and information
science, especially demonstrative of innovative methods and
theoretical frameworks or unusual extensions or applications
of well-known methods and tools. It publishes research
articles primarily from a social science perspective and does
not normally publish technical information science studies like
algorithmic methods related to information retrieval or natural
language processing or bibliometric studies”. Impact Factor of
the journal for 2019 is 1.485, SCImago journal ranking (SJR)
for 2020 is 1.225 and the journal is listed in quartile one (Q1)
for 2020 with h-index value 57. Major objective of the present
study is to examine the pattern of growth of publications,
identication of prolic countries, institutions and authors as
well as the impact of their output in terms of average citations
and i-10 index besides examining domestic and international
collaboration of dierent countries.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In past one decade, several authors have undertaken
the bibliometric analysis of several individual journals. For
instance Dutt, Garg and Bali1 analysed 1,317 papers published
during 1978-2001 in the international journal Scientometrics.
“The study found that during the study period, the US share
of output decreased, while the share of the Netherlands,
India, France and Japan increased. The area of scientometric
assessment of nations and institutions received the maximum
attention”. A bibliometric analysis of 975 articles published in
the Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology from 2000 to 2007 was made by. Results of
the study indicate that “authors’ from 47 countries contributed
articles to the journal2. The dominant contributions were
DJLIT, VOL. 42, NO. 1, JAN 2022
58
made by the authors from USA followed by the UK”. Das3
analysed 239 papers published in the ve volumes of Journal
of Informetrics. Findings of the study revealed that “the
publication output doubled over the study period with highest
number of two-authored contributions. Thirty two countries
across the world contributed to the journal”. Patil and Lihitkar4
analysed 1,005 articles published in 55 volumes (1958-2014)
of Library Herald published by Delhi Library Association,
India. The study found that “more than three-fourth of the
articles were single authored and about half of the contributors
were by librarians working in the universities, colleges, and
other institutes”. Garg, Lamba and Singh5 made a bibliometric
analysis of 1,698 papers (based on complete count of papers)
published in DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information
Technology during 1992-2019 (28 years). “The study found
that 1,698 articles were contributed by 39 countries. Among
these, maximum contributions were made by Indian authors.
However, the papers published by USA made the maximum
impact as reected by the values of citation per paper (CPP)
and relative citation impact (RCI)”. For a detailed review
of studies on individual journals readers can refer to Kevin,
Zainab and Anuar6. Authors made a review of 82 bibliometric
studies of individual journals in dierent disciplines published
during 1998-2008. The study found that “the Indian authors
contributed 28 per cent of the total articles”. None of the above
quoted studies examined the impact of the published papers
except the study by Garg, Lamba and Singh. The review of
literature found one study related to Library and Information
Science Research (LISR) by Malliari and Togia7. However, it is
no way similar to the present study as it examined the research
approaches and the types of quantitative and qualitative research
methods used in articles published in the journal between 2005
and 2010. The present study is a bibliometric analysis of 699
papers published in Library and Information Science Research
during 1994-2020 (27 years) with the objectives mentioned
below.
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The aim of the study is to examine the pattern of growth
of articles published during the 27 years period of 1994-2020
in nine blocks, each of three years and their distribution in
terms of countries, institutions and authors and their citation
impact using Citation per Paper (CPP) and i-10 index, citation
pattern of the published articles and identication of highly
cited papers and the pattern of domestic and international
collaboration.
4. DATA, METHODOLOGY AND BIBLIOMETRIC
INDICATORS USED
Authors downloaded the data from the website of the
journal available at https://www.journals.elsevier.com/library-
and-information-science-research for a period of 27 years from
volume 16 (1994) to volume 42 (2020). Thus, 699 records
published during 1994-2020 were downloaded. MS Excel
software was used for downloading the data and analysis.
Downloaded data consisted name of all the authors along
with their aliation(s), year of publication of the paper; and
citations received by each paper. Though, the selected journal
is indexed in dierent recognised global databases like Web
of Science and Scopus. These databases were not accessible
to the authors of the paper as these are very costly. Hence the
citation data was obtained from Google Scholar in the month
of April 2021. For nding out the number of citations, title of
the paper was pasted in the search box of Google Scholar and
the number of citations as reected in the search results was
recorded in the MS Excel data sheet. Data was analysed to
examine growth of articles published during the study period of
1994 to 2020, most prolic countries, institutions and authors
and the impact of their output using citation per paper and i-10
index. Authors also examined the citation pattern of output and
identied highly cited papers as well as pattern of domestic
and international collaboration. Authors have used the method
of complete count for analysis of publications output and the
citations received by them. This method is dierent from the
rst author count where only the rst author gets the credit.
In the complete count method each country or institution or
authors in multi-authored papers are given unit credit for their
contributions which inates the number of contributions and
citations. The actual number of papers in the present case was
699 and these have also increased to 1389, because of the
method of complete count.
Four dierent bibliometric indicators namely TNP: total
number of publications published during 1994-2020, TNC:
total number of citations received by these papers during
1994-2020 (April 30, 2021) as reected by Google Scholar,
CPP: citation per paper, and i-10 index have been used for
comparison of output and impact of countries, institutions and
authors. The details of these indicators can be seen in Garg,
Lamba and Singh. Google scholar developed i-10 index and
it was obtained by analyzing the citation data. It indicates the
number of publications that received 10 or more citations.
For example, suppose USA received 34,479 citations for 647
papers published by it. Of these, 509 papers received 10 or
more citations. Hence i-10 index for USA will be 509.
5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
In the following paragraphs we discuss the results of the
study on dierent parameters mentioned under the objectives.
Table 1. Chronological distribution of output
Year TNP TNP (%) Growth rate (%)
1994-1996 47 6.7 -
1997-1999 54 7.7 14.5
2000-2002 50 7.2 (-)7.4
2003-2005 72 10.3 44.0
2006-2008 83 11.8 15.3
2009-2011 90 12.9 8.4
2012-2014 96 13.7 6.7
2015-2017 109 15.6 13.5
2018-2020 98 14.0 (-)10.1
Total 699 100
Average per block 77.7
GARG & SINGH : A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF PAPERS PUBLISHED IN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH
59
5.1 Chronological Distribution of Output
Table 1 presents the distribution of output during the
period of 1994-2020 in nine dierent blocks of three years
each. This grouping is done as the yearly data may uctuate
and may not provide the correct pattern of literature growth.
During the study period 699 articles in 27 volumes were
published by the journal. Thus, on average, 25.9 papers in
each volume and 77.7 articles in each block of three years was
published by the journal. Data depicted in Table 1 indicates that
the journal published less than average number of articles per
block in the rst four blocks, the lowest being in the rst block
of 1994-1996. The number of articles started increasing after
the third block of 2003-2005 and highest number of articles
were published in the block of 2015-2017 in which the journal
published about 16 per cent of all articles followed by articles
in the last block of 2018-2020 contributing about 14 per cent of
articles. Thus, in these two blocks, the journal published about
30 per cent of total articles. Table 1 also indicates that in terms
of the absolute output, the number of papers is increasing;
however, rate of growth of published articles is inconsistent.
Highest rate of growth (44 %) was during the period of 2003-
2005 and the number of articles published had a negative rate
of growth for the two blocks of 2000-2002 and the last block
of 2018-2020.
5.2 Prolific Countries and
Impact of their Output
Analysis of data indicates that
51 countries contributed the total
output. Table 2 depicts data on the
distribution of output and its impact
in terms of citations per paper (CPP)
and i-10 index by prolic countries.
Fourteen countries depicted in Table 2
contributed one percent or more papers
and accounted for ~88 per cent of the
total output and the remaining 37
countries contributed about 12 per cent
of the total output. The pattern of output
indicates a highly skewed distribution
of research output as the output of the
37 countries not listed in Table 2 varied
between one to 12 papers only. Among
the prolic countries listed in Table 2,
USA produced the maximum number
of publications contributing about 46.6
per cent of the total output similar to the
study of the Journal of the American
Society of Information Science and
Technology by Mukherjee. This was
followed by the output from Canada,
which contributed much less number
of papers as compared to the USA.
Thus, these two countries together
produced about 57 per cent of the total
output. The remaining 12 countries
not listed in Table 2 contributed 31 per
Table 2. Distribution of output and impact of most prolic
countries
# Country TNP TNC CPP i-10index
(%)
1. USA 647 34439 53.2 509 (78.7)
2. Canada 145 10463 72.2 124 (85.5)
3. UK 82 5383 65.6 71 (86.6)
4. Australia 82 4776 58.2 72 (87.8)
5. China 46 677 14.7 23 (50.0)
6. Finland 40 4051 101.3 38 (95.0)
7. Iran 30 415 13.8 11 (36.7)
8. South Korea 26 1395 53.7 23 (88.5)
9. Norway 24 2605 108.5 21 (87.5)
10. Taiwan 24 1069 44.5 17 (70.8)
11. Spain 23 608 26.4 14 (60.9)
12. Hong Kong 21 1276 60.8 17 (81.0)
13. Israel 18 904 50.2 15 (83.4)
14. Greece 14 641 45.8 8 (57.1)
Sub-total 1,222 68,702 56.2 963 (78.8)
Other 37 countries 167 5,359 32.1 101 (60.4)
Total 1,389 74,061 53.3 1064 (76.6)
Table 3. Distribution of output and impact of most prolic institutions
# Name of the institution TNP TNC CPP i-10 index (%)
1. Florida State University, USA 93 4582 49.3 86 (92.5)
2. University of Western Ontario, Canada 40 3345 83.6 38 (95.0)
3. The University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, USA 34 2049 60.3 30 (88.2)
4. University of Toronto, Canada 29 1270 43.8 23 (79.3)
5. Indiana University Bloomington, USA 27 725 26.9 22 (81.5)
6. McGill University, Canada 25 2301 92.0 22 (88.0)
7. University of Tampere, Finland 24 3542 147.6 24 (100.0)
8. University of Alberta, Canada 22 2528 114.9 22 (100.0)
9. University of Tennessee, USA 22 2166 98.5 20 (90.9)
10. The State University of New Jersey, USA 21 921 43.9 21 (100.0)
11. Wuhan University, China 20 298 14.9 11 (55.0)
12. Charles Stuart University, Australia 19 1149 60.5 19 (100.0)
13. Queensland University of Technology,
Australia 17 841 49.5 14 (82.4)
14. The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 17 967 56.9 15 (88.2)
15. University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, USA 16 2496 156.0 12 (75.0)
16. University of Kentucky, USA 15 607 40.5 7 (46.7)
17. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA 15 400 26.7 5 (33.3)
Sub total 456 30,187 66.2 391 (85.7)
Other 376 institutions 933 43,874 47.0 673 (72.1)
Total 1389 74,061 53.3 1064 (76.6)
DJLIT, VOL. 42, NO. 1, JAN 2022
60
Table 4. Highly prolic authors
# Author Institution TNP TNC CPP i-10 index (%)
1. Stvilia, Besiki Florida State University, USA 10 437 43.7 9 (90.0)
2. Savolainen, Reijo University of Tampere, Finland 10 2284 228.4 10 (100.0)
3. Gross, Melissa Florida State University, USA 9 665 73.9 9 (100.0)
4. Dilevko, Juris University of Toronto, Canada 8 135 16.9 6 (43.2)
5. Julien, Heidi University of Alberta, Canada 7 949 135.6 7 (100.0)
6. Aharony, Noa Bar-Ilan University, Israel 7 358 51.1 6 (85.7)
7. Large, Andrew McGill University, Canada 6 666 111.0 6 (100.0)
8. Thelwall, Mike University of Wolverhampton, UK 6 279 46.5 6 (100.0)
9. Van Scoy, Amy University at Bualo, USA 5 47 9.4 2 (40.0)
10. McClure, Charles R. Florida State University, USA 5 180 36.0 5 (100.0)
11. Shaw, Debora Indiana University, USA 5 99 19.8 3 (60.0)
12. Latham, Don Florida State University, USA 5 424 84.8 5 (100.0)
13. Burnett, Gary Florida State University, USA 5 300 60.0 5 (100.0)
14. Luo, Lili San Jose State University, USA 5 171 34.2 5 (100.0)
15. Kazmer, Michelle M Florida State University, USA 5 103 20.6 5 (100.0)
16. Marty, Paul F. Florida State University, USA 5 209 41.8 5 (100.0)
17. Hernon, Peter Simmons College, USA 5 275 55.0 4 (80.0)
18. Shachaf, Pnina Indiana University, USA 5 305 61.0 5 (100.0)
19. Sin, Sei-Ching Joanna Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 5 367 73.4 5 (100.0)
Sub total 118 8253 69.9 109 (92.4)
Other authors contributing papers in the range of 1-4 1271 65808 51.8 955 (75.1)
Total 1389 74061 53.3 1064 (76.6)
cent papers in the range of 14 to 82 papers. It also indicates a
skewed distribution of output.
CPP and i-10 index was used to examine the impact of the
publication output of these 14 prolic countries. The value of
CPP for the global output is 53.3. Table 2 indicates that China,
Iran, Taiwan, Spain, Israel, and Greece had lower value of CPP
than the global value of CPP. Among these six countries, Iran
had the lowest value of CPP followed by China. The value
of CPP for USA is close to the global value. For rest of the
countries, the value of CPP is more than the global value of
CPP indicating that the papers published by these countries
were cited more than the world average. Among the countries
listed in Table 2, highest value of CPP is for Norway (108.5)
followed by Finland (101.3). Among all the papers more than
three-fourth (76.5 %) papers were cited 10 or more times
and remaining papers (23.5 %) were cited less than 10 times.
Among the countries listed in Table 2, USA had the highest
number of papers cited more than 10 times in absolute terms,
but proportion of papers cited 10 or more times having highest
value of i-10 index was for Finland as 95 per cent of papers
published by Finland were cited 10 or more times. Next in rank
for proportion of papers being cited 10 more times was South
Korea closely followed by Australia, Norway, UK, and Israel.
5.3 Distribution of Output and the Impact of Prolific
Institutions
An analysis of data for institutional productivity found
that 393 institutions from dierent parts of the world produced
the total output. Average number of institutions per paper is
3.5. Prolic institutions producing one percent or more of the
output have been depicted in Table 3. The output of these 17
institutions was about one-third (32.8 %) of the global output.
The proportion of citations received by these institutions was
40.8 per cent of all the citations. Remaining 376 institutions
produced 67.2 per cent of the total output and received about
59.2 per cent of all citations. Of the 17 institutions listed in
Table 3, eight were located in USA and remaining nine
institutions were located in Canada (4), Australia (2), Finland,
China and Hong Kong one each. Florida State University
(USA) topped the list with 6.7 per cent papers followed by
University of Western Ontario (Canada) with 2.9 per cent
share of papers. For the listed prolic 17 institutions the CPP
is 66.2, which is higher than global value of CPP. Among these
institutions, the value of CPP is highest (156.0) for University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA followed by University
of Tampere, Finland with a CPP value of (147.6) and University
of Alberta (Canada) with a CPP value of 114.9. At the same
time the value of CPP was less than the average value of CPP
for eight institutions. Among these seven institutions, Wuhan
University (China) had the lowest value of CPP followed by
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (USA), and Indiana
University Bloomington (USA). All papers published by
University of Alberta (Canada), The State University of New
Jersey (USA), and Charles Stuart University (Australia) were
cited 10 or more times.
GARG & SINGH : A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF PAPERS PUBLISHED IN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH
61
Table 6. Highly cited papers
#Author (aliation) and bibliographic
detail of paper TNC (CPY)
1. Savolainen, R. (University of Tampere,
Finland) LISR, 17(3), 1995, 259-294 1326 (53)
2. Haythornthwaite, C. (University of
Illinois, USA) LISR, 18(4), 1996, 323-342 1228 (51)
3. Talja, S. (University of Tampere, Finland)
LISR, 21(4), 1999, 459-477 474 (23)
4. Williamson, K. (RMIT University,
Australia) LISR, 20(1), 1998, 23-40 474 (22)
5.
Jansen, B.J. (The Pennsylvania State
University, USA) LISR, 28(3), 2006, 407-
432
384 (27)
6.
*Connaway, L.S.; *Dickey, T.J. and
**Radford, M.L. (*OCLC Research, USA
and**Rutgers University, USA) LISR,
33(3), 2011, 179-190
382 (42)
7. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (University of Central
Arkansas, USA) LISR,19(1), 1997, 5-33 353 (15)
8.
Seonghee, K. and *Boryung, J. (Chung-
Ang University, Korea, and *Louisiana
State University, USA) LISR, 30(4), 2008,
282-290
340 (28)
9.
Gross, M. and Latham, D. (The Florida
State University, USA) LISR, 29(3), 2007,
332-353
333 (26)
10. Julien, H. and Barker, S. (University of
Alberta, Canada) LISR, 31(1), 2009, 12-17 332 (30)
11.
Aabo, S. and Audunson, R. (Akershus
University College of Applied Sciences,
Norway) LISR, 34(2), 2012, 138-149
314 (39)
12.
Agosto, D.E. and Hughes-Hassell,
S. (Drexel University, USA) LISR, 27(2),
2005, 141-163
306 (20)
13. Westbrook, L. (University of Michigan,
USA) LISR,16(3), 1994, 241-254 305 (12)
Total 6551
Table 5. Distribution of citations
Number of citations TNP (%) Total citations
0 (Uncited) 41 (3.0) 0
1 27 (1.9) 27
2 27 (1.9) 54
3 31 (2.2) 93
4 32 (2.3) 128
5 50 (3.6) 250
6-10 136 (9.8) 1085
11-15 125 (9.0) 1656
16-20 109 (7.8) 1980
21-25 71 (5.1) 1636
26-50 300 (21.6) 11050
51-100 225 (16.2) 16082
101-200 142 (10.2) 18958
201-300 53 (3.8) 12122
> 300 20 (1.4) 8940
Total 1,389 (100.0) 74,061
5.4 Distribution of Output and the Impact of Prolific
Authors
The total output was produced by 1,290 authors. Thus,
the average number of authors per paper is 1.1. Table 4 lists
19 prolic authors contributing ve or more papers during the
study period. Of the 19 prolic authors, 12 were from the USA
and the remaining seven were from Canada (3), Finland, Israel,
UK and Singapore one each. Seven of 19 prolic authors were
from Florida State University (USA) and two from Indiana
University, USA. Remaining 10 authors were scattered in 10
dierent institutions. These 19 authors published 118 (8.5 %)
papers. The remaining 91.5 per cent papers were contributed
by 1,271 authors indicating a highly skewed output among the
authors. Of the 1,271 authors, 921 (66.3 %) authors produced
one paper only whereas the remaining 350 (25.2 %) authors
produced two to four papers. Stvilia, Besiki of Florida State
University (USA) and Savolainen, Reijo of University of
Tampere (Finland) topped the list with 10 papers each. Table 4
indicates that the value of CPP was higher than global value of
CPP (53.3) for nine authors, and for the remaining, it was less
than 53.3. Among all the authors, CPP was highest (228.4) for
Savolainen, Reijo of University of Tampere (Finland). Other
two authors for whom the CPP was more than 100 were Julien,
Heidi of the University of Alberta (Canada) and Large, Andrew
of the McGill University (Canada). These three authors had
high values of CPP because all their papers were cited 10 or
more times. The value of CPP was lowest for Van Scoy Amy
of the University of Bualo (USA) and Dilevko, Juris of the
University of Toronto (Canada), because the proportion of
papers published by these authors cited 10 or more times was
about 40 per cent.
5.5 Pattern of Citations and Highly Cited Papers
Citation counts are used to examine the impact of each
article published in the journal by making a count of the number
of times these are cited by other articles. Citation counts are
used to evaluate the inuence of an article by determining
how often it has been cited by other researchers. High number
of citations to a publication is considered as an indication of
inuence, visibility and impact. An author’s visibility can be
measured by determining how often his/her articles have been
cited in other articles. Table 5 depicts the citation distribution
of papers published in the journal during 1994-2020. Citations
of papers were examined in the last week of April 2021. During
this period, 1,389 papers received 74,061 citations. Of the total
papers included in the analysis only a minuscule number 41(3
%) of papers were not cited. Of the total cited papers, 11.9 per
cent were cited between 1-5 times. The remaining papers were
cited more than ve times. About 15 per cent papers were cited
more than 100 times of which 53 (3.8 %) were cited more than
DJLIT, VOL. 42, NO. 1, JAN 2022
62
200 times and 20 (1.4 %) papers were cited more than 300
times.
5.6 Highly Cited Papers
Highly cited papers which were cited more than 300 times
have been depicted in Table 6. These 13 papers attracted 6,551
(8.8 %) of all citations. Two most highly cited papers which
received more than 1000 citations originated from University
of Tampere (Finland) and the other from University of Illinois
(USA). Of the 13 highly cited papers, 8 papers originated from
institutions located in the USA and the rest ve originated
from Finland (2), Australia, Canada, and Norway one each.
Since the number of citations received depends upon the
citation window, i.e., the time period for which citations were
calculated. The variation in citations was normalised by using
Citation per Year (CPY) used by Garg and Tripathi9. Analysis
of data based on CPY results a change in the ranking of authors
based on total citations. For example, the author ranked at 6
will change to rank 3 if arranged by CPY. Similarly, the paper
ranked at 11 will also change to 4. However, rank for the rst
two authors remain unchanged. Of the 19 highly cited papers
one is authored in international collaboration (# 8) and one in
domestic collaboration (# 6).
5.7 Pattern of Domestic and International
Collaboration
During 1994-2020, of the 699 papers published in
the journal, 192 (27.5 %) were published in domestic
collaboration by 26 dierent countries and 83 (11.8 %) papers
in international collaboration by 27 dierent countries. Table 7
depicts the distribution of papers in domestic and international
collaboration by country. Of the 192 papers published in
domestic collaboration, 104 papers were published by USA
followed by Canada (15) and UK (9). Thus, these three countries
published 128 (66.7 %) papers in domestic collaboration and
remaining 64 (33.3 %) papers were published by 23 countries.
Of the 78 papers published in international collaboration, 25
papers were published by USA followed by Canada (12) and
China (8) and the remaining 37 papers by other 12 countries.
USA published 25 papers in international collaboration with
15 dierent countries. Highest number of collaborative papers
was published with Canada (5) followed by Australia and
South Korea three each and Finland and China two each.
Only one paper each was published in collaboration with UK,
Honduras, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Thailand,
Japan, Sweden, India, and Taiwan. Canada published four
papers in international collaboration with USA followed by
three papers with Australia and two papers with UK.
Florida State University (USA) published the highest
number of papers in domestic collaboration with dierent
institutions located in the USA. University of Maryland had
the highest (3) number of papers in collaboration, while six
other universities had two papers, and nine universities had
only one paper in collaboration with Florida State University.
University of Tennessee at Knoxville, USA had collaboration
with six dierent universities. Among other institutes,
University of Toronto (Canada) had collaboration with four
Table7. Distribution of domestic and international collaborative
papers by country
# Country
Papers in
domestic
collaboration
Papers in
international
collaboration
Total
papers
1. USA 104 25 129
2. Canada 15 12 27
3. UK 9 4 13
4. Australia 7 5 12
5. China 7 8 15
6. Iran 6 1 7
7. South Korea 5 2 7
8. Taiwan 4 3 7
9. Spain 4 0 4
10. Hong Kong 4 2 6
11. Israel 3 0 3
12. Pakistan 3 1 4
*Other 15
countries with
international
collaboration
**Other 14
countries with
domestic
Collaboration
21** 15* 36
Total 192 78 270
*Other 15 countries with international collaborative links (Portugal, Malaysia,
Uganda, Norway, Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Tanzania,
Sweden, South Africa, Ghana, and Zimbabwe each one, Greece two and
Finland & Singapore each three).
**Other 14 countries with domestic collaborative links (Portugal, Malaysia,
India, France, Argentina, Italy, and Slovenia each one & Finland, Greece,
Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Czech Republic, and Nigeria each two).
dierent institutes and the University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario had three collaborative papers.
6. DISCUSSION
The present study examined the pattern of growth of
research using the output of publications in block of three
years each published during the period of 1994-2020 in the
journal Library and Information Science Research. It also
identied prolic countries, institutions and authors and the
impact of their output using CPP and i-10 index. The study
also identied the highly cited papers and pattern of domestic
and international collaboration.
The study indicates an
increasing trend of output during the study period. A highly
skewed distribution of research output has been observed
for countries, institutions and authors. For instance,
14 most
prolic countries produced ~88 per cent articles and only 12
per cent output was contributed by 37 countries.
USA was
found to be the most productive country; however, the value
of CPP for the USA is lower than Norway and Finland. Of
the 17 prolic institutions nine were located in the USA and
remaining eight in Canada, Australia, Finland, China and
Hong Kong. The value of CPP was highest for
University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA followed by University of
GARG & SINGH : A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF PAPERS PUBLISHED IN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH
63
Tampere, Finland. Wuhan University (China) had the lowest
value of CPP.
Most of the prolic and highly cited authors
were also from the USA.
Citation analysis of papers indicates
that only a minuscule number 41(3 %) of papers remained
uncited and the remaining papers were cited one or more times.
USA published highest number of papers in domestic as well
as in international collaboration and among the institutions
Florida State University had published highest number of
papers in absolute terms as well as in domestic collaboration.
7. CONCLUSION
Based on the pattern of output it is observed that block
to block rate of growth of published articles during the study
period is inconsistent. Based on the above bibliometric analysis
it can be concluded that USA is the global leader in the eld
of library and information science research. It contributed the
highest number of papers in absolute terms as well as highest
number of papers in domestic and in international collaboration.
In support of this, it is important to mention here that the four
international abstracting and indexing services in the eld
of LIS indexed highest number of journals published by the
USA10. Most of the prolic institutions and authors are also
from the USA. Most of the highly cited papers also originated
from the USA, though the CPP value for papers published by
USA are less than Norway and Finland. Based on the number
of uncited papers it can be argued that Library and Information
Science Research is a vehicle for high-quality research as only
41 papers of the total papers remained uncited. This indicates
that papers published in the journal are of high relevance to
its readers. It is expected that the present study might be of
interest to the scholars working in the area of bibliometrics and
scientometrics.
REFERENCES
1. Dutt, B.; Garg, K.C. & Bali, A. Scientometrics of the
international journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 2003,
56(1), 81-93.
doi: 10.1023/A:1021950607895.
2. Mukherjee, B. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology (2000-2007): A
bibliometric study. IFLA Journal, 2009, 35(4), 341-358.
doi: 10.1177/0340035209352429.
3. Das, P.K. Journal of Informetrics: A bibliometric
prole. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol., 2013, 33(3), 243-
252.
doi: 10.14429/djlit.33.3.4610.
4. Patil, N. & Lihitkar, S. Fifty two years of Library Herald
(1958 to 2014). Library Herald, 2018, 56(2), 209-232.
doi: 10.5958/0976-2469.2018.00023.4.
5. Garg, K.C.; Lamba, M. & Singh, R.K. Bibliometric
Analysis of papers published during 1992 to 2019
in DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information
Technology. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol., 2020, 40(6),
396-402.
doi:10.14429/djlit.40.06.15741.
6. Kevin, W.U.A.; Zainab, A.N. &Anuar, N.B. Bibliometric
studies on single journals: A review. Malaysian J. Libr.
Inf. Sci., 2009, 14(1), 17-55. https://core.ac.uk/download/
pdf/11890315.pdf (Accessed on 25 September 2021).
7. Malliari, A. & Togia, A. An analysis of research strategies
of articles published in Library Science journals: The
example of Library and Information Science Research.
Qual. Quant. Methods Libr. (QQML), 2016, 5(4), 805-
818. http://qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/
view/6/6 (Accessed on 25 September 2021).
8. Dwivedi, S.; Kumar, S. & Garg, K.C. Scientometric prole
of organic chemistry research in India during 2004–2013.
Current Science, 2015, 109(5) 869-877.
doi: 10.18520/v109/i5/869-877
9. Garg, K.C. & Tripathi, H.K. Bibliometrics and
Scientometrics in India during 1995-2014: An overview
of studies during 1995-2014. Annals Libr. Inf. Stud.,
2017, 64(1), 28-36. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/
123456789/41534/1/ALIS%2064%281%29%2028-36.
pdf. (Accessed on 5 December 2021).
10. Garg, K.C.; Kumar, S. & Singh, R.K. Bibliometric
study of the coverage and overlap of journals indexed
by four abstracting and indexing services in library and
information science. The Serials Librarian, 2020, 1-13.
doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2019.1704341.
CONTRIBUTORS
Dr K.C. Garg holds a PhD in Library and Information Science
with specialisation in Scientometrics. He joined CSIR-NISTADS
in 1983 where from, he superannuated as Chief Scientist in
January 2012.
In the current study, he examined the downloaded metadata
and prepared the final manuscript of the paper.
Mr Rahul Kumar Singh holds a Master’s degree in History
and Library and Information Science. He is working in Nehru
Memorial Museum & Library, New Delhi. He has an expertise
in Library Automation & Digitization, Electronic Resource
Management, Website Design & Development and LMS Server
Maintenance, etc.
In the current study, he downloaded the metadata, examined
the citations of all papers from Google Scholar and tabulated
the metadata.
