Content uploaded by Rahul Kumar Singh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rahul Kumar Singh on Dec 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
J Data Sci. Info. Citation Studies., 2024; 3(3):258-268.
https://www.jcitation.org Research Article
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024258
DOI: 10.5530/jcitation.3.3.27
Copyright Information :
Copyright Author (s) 2024 Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
Publishing Partner : Manuscript Technomedia. [www.mstechnomedia.com]
Journal of Documentation: A Bibliometric Study of Papers
Published from 2000 to 2023
Kailash Chandra Garg1,*, Suresh Kumar2, Rahul Kumar Singh3
1CSIR-NIScPR, Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi, INDIA.
2Senior Principal Technical Ocer, CSIR-NIScPR, Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi, INDIA.
3Prime Ministers Museum and Library, Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India, New Delhi, INDIA.
ABSTRACT
The study aims to present a bibliometric overview of 1,278 papers published in the Journal of
Documentation in a period of 24 years from 2000-2023 for chronological distribution of output,
variation in impact factor and SCImago ranking of the journal. Using the method of complete
count, the study examined the citation impact of the prolic countries, institutions and authors
using Citation Per Paper (CPP), i-10 index and Papers not Cited (PnC%). The study also examined
the pattern of citation besides identifying the highly cited papers. The results of the study reveal
that an average of 53 articles per volumes were published during the study period. The impact
factor and SJR of the journal uctuated during the study period of 2000-2023. The UK contributed
the highest number of articles and citation impact was highest for Switzerland. University of
Sheeld (UK) topped the list of most prolic institutions with the highest number of papers.
The study found the contributions from developing countries and their aliated institutions to
thejournalwere almost negligible.
Keywords: Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Citation analysis, Journal evaluation, Journal of
Documentation.
INTRODUCTION
Academic journals are the most important source for providing
the latest and updated information in any discipline. ousands of
academic journals are being published in dierent elds of science
and technology as well as in social sciences including Library and
Information Science (LIS). e Journal of Documentation is one
of the most established and prestigious scholarly journals in the
eld of library and information science. e journal provides
a unique focus on theories, concepts, models, frameworks and
philosophies related to documents and recorded knowledge.
As noted on the website of the journal, the articles published
in the journal have long-lasting value, with the longest citation
half-life in their SSCI category. It is a double-blind peer-reviewed
academic publication and is regularly being published by Emerald
Group of Publishing. David Bawden of the City University
(London) is the current editor of the journal. e journal
publishes scholarly articles, research reports and critical reviews.
e primary audience for the journal comprises educators,
scholars, researchers and policy-makers involved in the eld of
library and information science. e journal started as a quarterly
publication in 1945 and expanded to ve issues per year between
1997 and 1999. Since 2000, the journal has been published as a
bimonthly publication. On the eve of its 60th anniversary in 2004,
the journal published a series of review articles between 2004
and 2006. e article authored by Rachel Ivy Clarke and Sayward
Schoonmaker entitled “Metadata for diversity: Identication
and implications of potential access points for diverse library
resources” published in the September 2019 issue of the journal
has won the Association for Library Collections and Technical
Services (ALCTS) outstanding publication award. e journal is
indexed and abstracted in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)
of the Clarivate Analytics and Scopus of the Elsevier. e journal
is also indexed in the four leading international library and
information science databases as has been reected in a study by
(Garg et al., 2022). e impact factor as indicated on the website
of the journal for 2023 is 1.97 and the cite score of the journal
based on Scopus database for 2023 is 4.2. e current study makes
a comprehensive bibliometric study of 1,278 articles published in
24 volumes of the journal from 2000 to 2023. e present study
may be useful to professionals of library and information science.
Received: 07-09-2024;
Revised: 01-10-2024;
Accepted: 30-10-2024.
Correspondence:
Dr. Kailash Chandra Garg
Chief Scientist, CSIR-National Institute
of Science Communication and Policy
Research (CSIR-NIScPR), Dr K. S. Krishnan
Marg, New Delhi- 110012, INDIA.
Email: gargkc022@gmail.com
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024 259
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Studying the conceptual structure of a journal in a research area
can be benecial to practitioners and academicians. Bibliometric
study of a single journal is primarily intended to create a portrait
of the journal that exhibits its productivity, impact and its ability
in diusing the knowledge in the specic eld it portrays. In the
last two decades several individual journals in the disciplines of
LIS have been the focus of bibliometric studies. Readers can see
bibliometric studies related to international individual journals
by (Garg et al., 2003) for papers published in the international
journal Scientometrics from 1978 to 2001, (Mukherjee et al.,
2009) for articles published in the Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) from 2000 to
2007 (Garg and Singh 2022) for papers published in the journal
Library and Information Science Research (USA) from 1994 to
2020 (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018) for papers published from 1997
to 2016 in Journal of Knowledge Management (Abdi et al., 2018)
for papers published in Information Processing and Management
from 1980 to 2015, (Gaur et al., 2023) for papers published
from 2007 to 2021 in Journal of Informetrics respectively. Few
studies related to Indian LIS journals are by (Garg et al., 2020)
for DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology
(DJLIT) from 1992 to 2019, (Garg and Bebi 2021) for a
bibliometric analysis of papers published in Collnet Journal of
Scientometrics and Information Management from 2007 to 2019
and (Giri and Das 2023) for papers published in volume 1 (2012)
to volume11 (2022) of the Journal of Scientometric Research.
Journal of Documentation (J. Doc) has been the subject of several
bibliometric studies earlier also. For example, (Tsay and Shu 2011)
analysed 14,174 references appended in 354 articles published
in the journal from 1998-2008 (11 years). e study revealed
that journal articles are the most cited documents, followed by
books and book chapters, electronic resources and conference
proceedings respectively. e three main classes of cited journals
were papers from the discipline of library science, science and
social sciences. e three highly cited subjects of library and
information science journals were searching, information
work and online information retrieval. (Roy and Basak 2013)
examined the articles published in 36 issues of the journal
published between 2005-2010 for authorship pattern, degree of
collaboration, geographical distribution of papers and citation
analysis. e study found a trend of growth in contributions
published during the study period and that average number of
contributions per volume was 41. e majority of papers were
multi-authored. e geographical distribution revealed that the
contributions by the United Kingdom was the highest. Most
of the contributions were on information retrieval followed by
information science (philosophy and theory), cataloguing and
classication, knowledge and information management, etc.,
in that order. (Dasgupta et al., 2018) conducted a bibliometric
analysis of publications published in J. Doc from 1991 to 2013 (25
years) using the Web of Science database. An analysis of 1,193
downloaded records found that the highest number of articles was
published in 2011 and lowest in 1995 and England published the
highest numbers of records. e highest number of citations was
668 in 2010 and lowest in 1996. (Mokhtari et al., 2020) analysed
2,394 papers published in J.Doc from its inception in 1945 to
2018. e study found an increasing trend in published papers
and citations received. Also highly cited and most inuential
authors were well-known in the eld. However, the contributions
of developing countries and their aliated institutions to the
journal were relatively low. Highly frequent keywords and keyword
co-occurrence patterns showed that the journal considered most
topics related to LIS, including newly emerged ones. e authors
and sources (generally journals) cited in the journal are all
prolic and inuential ones. (Dhanaraju and Vemulapalli 2021)
examined 672 articles published in 10 years between 2011 and
2020. e study found that the highest numbers of articles were
published in 2019. e distribution of papers demonstrates that
writers with academic aliations published more articles and that
the study's highest number of articles published is more than 20
pages and 2019 has the most articles and citations and according
to author credibility, LIS scholars have contributed the most over
the research period. Foreign authors were heavily involved in the
publication of the majority of articles. (Durgannavar et al., 2022)
conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,706 articles published in
J.Doc from 1970 to 2019 using the Scopus database. e study
found that annual scientic production and average citations
constantly had an uptrend. e journal's had tremendous impact
in terms of citations (37,161) with an h-index of 80 and a g-index
of 148. e United Kingdom was the dominant country in terms
of number of papers and citation count. University of Sheeld
(UK) topped the list with 128 publications. e thematic map
consists of eleven clusters and ‘information retrieval’ was found
to be the largest cluster comprehending 56 sub-themes occurring
995 times. Co-citation network identied four clusters with
Wilson TD as the most cited authors. e study also found that
the most collaborative authors are from the United Kingdom. e
present study is dierent from the above quoted studies as it uses
dierent bibliometric parameters not used in the above quoted
studies. ese parameters are i-10 index suggested by Google
Scholar and papers not cited (PnC %). Also the present study uses
a longer time period of study than above cited studies except the
studies by (Mokhtari et al., 2020) and (Durgannavar et al., 2022)
However, these studies are silent on the counting methodology
used in the data analysis.
OBJECTIVES
Following are the objectives of the study:
Type of documents used for dissemination of results in the
journal under study;
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024260
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
Chronological distribution of output from 2000 to 2023 in eight
blocks, each of three years;
Pattern of Impact Factor (IF) and SJR of the journal from 2000
to 2023;
Most productive countries, institutions and authors and their
citation impact in terms of Citation Per Paper (CPP), i-10 index
and PnC% (Papers not Cited %) using citations as obtained from
Web of Science database;
Change in the pattern of authorship during the study period;
Pattern of citations and identication of highly cited authors
based on citations received.
METHODOLOGY
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic
databases for publication metadata and citation data. e
publication and citation data used in the present study was
downloaded from the Web of Science core collection on March
5, 2024 using “Journal of Documentation” in the “Publication
title” tag for the time period from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2023. is
query resulted in 1,814 records. Data was extracted from WoS
core collection in CSV format and bibliometric analyses were
done using Microso Excel. Authors have used the method of
complete count for publication and citation analysis. Under this
method, each country or institution or authors in multi-authored
papers are given unit credit for their contributions, unlike rst
author count, where only the rst author gets the credit. e
method of complete count inates the number of contributions
and citations. In the present study also, the actual number of
papers was 1,278 and increased to 2,678 using the complete
count method. Downloaded data consisted of the name of all the
authors along with their aliation(s), year of publication of the
paper; and citations received by each paper. e study examined
the dierent bibliometric parameters mentioned under the
objectives above under head 3.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Type of documents used for dissemination of results
During the 24 years period of study from volume 56 (2000) to
volume 79 (2023), the journal published 1,814 records. Of the
1,814 records, 1210 (66.7%) were articles and 68 (3.7%) reviews.
Articles and reviews constituted 1,278 (70.4%) records. Other
type of documents which were published in the journal were
book reviews (432, 23.8%), editorial material (82, 4.5%), reprint
(11, 0.60%), biographical items (4), letters (4), correction (2) and
bibliography (1). In the present study, authors have included only
articles and reviews and did not include other types of documents
in the analysis as their impact in terms of citations is negligible.
Chronological distribution of output from 2000-2023
Table 1 presents the distribution of output for 24 years from 2000
to 2023 in eight dierent blocks of three years each. is grouping
is done to avoid the yearly uctuation in data which may result in
an incorrect pattern of literature growth. During the study period
from 2000 to 2023, the journal published 1,278 articles and
reviews. us, on an average about 53 records were published in
each volume. Data depicted in Table 1 indicates that the journal
published less than average number of articles per block in the rst
ve blocks, the lowest being in the rst two blocks of 2000-2002
and 2003-2005. e number of articles started increasing from
the third block of 2006-2008 and the highest number of articles
were published in the last block of 2021-2023 in which the journal
published almost one-fourth (23.2%) of all records. In the last two
blocks, the journal published about 40% of total records. Table 1
also indicates that in terms of the absolute output, the number
of papers is increasing; however, the rate of growth of published
articles is inconsistent. Highest rate of growth (65.5%) was during
the block of 2018-2020.e quantum of output increased more
than three times in the last block of 2021-2023 as compared to the
rst block of 2000-2002.
Year Articles Reviews Total Total (%) Annual Growth rate
2000-2002 84 6 90 7.04 -
2003-2005 88 6 94 7.5 4.5
2006-2008 110 7 117 9.2 24.5
2009-2011 122 7 129 10.1 10.3
2012-2014 133 4 137 10.7 6.2
2015-2017 186 8 194 15.2 41.6
2018-2020 211 10 221 17.3 65.5
2021-2023 276 20 296 23.2 33.9
Tota l 1210 68 1278
Average output per year=1278/24=53.25.
Table 1: Chronological distribution of output in block of three years.
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024 261
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
Impact Factor and SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR)
from 2000-2023
Impact Factor (IF)
Impact factor is the most used journal ranking indicator. It was
suggested by (Gareld 1972), the founder of the Science Citation
Index now Web of Science. e variation of the impact factor of
the journal from 2000 to 2022 is depicted in Figure 1. e data
depicted in Figure 1 indicates a highly uctuating trend of impact
factor from 2000 to 2022. e lowest value of impact factor (0.96)
is in the year 2005. An increasing trend has been observed aer
2005 with a peak in the year 2010. A declining trend is observed
again aer 2010 with another peak in 2015. However, a continuous
rising trend is visible from 2016 onwards with a peak of 2.97 (~3)
in the year 2022.
SCImago Journal Rank(SJR)
e SJR19 indicator is ameasure of the prestige ofscholarly
journalsthat accounts for both the number ofcitationsreceived
by a journal and the prestige of the journals where the citations
come from. It has been suggested as an alternative to the journal
impact factor of the Web of Science. However, it is not as popular
as the journal impact factor. e SJR also shows a uctuating
trend like the impact factor. e highest (1.648) value of SJR is in
the year 2001, aer which it shows a declining trend. e value
of SJR is more than one in the years 2002-2004 and 2012. In the
remaining years the value of SJR is less than one and is lowest
in the year 2016. However, the journal remained in Quartile one
(Q1) during the entire study period.
Prolic countries and impact of their output
Productivity
An analysis of data indicates that 62 countries scattered in
dierent continents of the globe contributed to the total output.
Of the 62 countries, the highest numbers of countries (30) were
located in Europe followed by Asia with 19 countries. Remaining
13 countries were located in Africa (7), North America (4) and
Oceania (2). Table 2 depicts the publication and citation data for
the most productive 28 countries which produced half-percent
or more papers each along with their impact in terms of Citations
Per Paper (CPP), i-10 index and papers not cited (PnC %). ese
28 prolic countries accounted for 96.3% of the total output. e
remaining 34 non-prolic countries contributed only 100 (3.7%)
of the total output. e pattern of output indicates a highly
skewed distribution of research output of the prolic countries
as it varied considerably in the range of 13 and 735 papers. e
output of non-prolic countries also indicates a highly skewed
distribution of output as it varied in the range of one to 10 papers.
Among the 28 prolic countries listed in Table 2, the United
Kingdom (UK) produced the highest number of publications
contributing slightly more than one-fourth (27.4%) of the total
output. is was followed by the output from the USA, which
published a much less number of papers as compared to the UK.
ese two countries together produced slightly less than half
(45.5%) of the total output. e remaining 26 countries listed in
Table 2 contributed about half (50.8%) papers in the range of 13 to
171 papers. It also indicates a skewed distribution of publication
output. One of the possible reasons for the high number of papers
from the UK may be because the journal is published from the
UK and several members of the editorial board are from the
institutions located in the UK resulting in more number of papers.
e UK was also found to be the highest publishing country in
the studies by (Mokhtari et al., 2020) (Durgannavar et al., 2022).
Other 34 countries: Iran (10), Estonia (8), Poland and Serbia
each (6), Lithuania, Russia, Turkey, India, Republic of Korea and
South Africa each (5), Czech Republic, Malta and Mexico each
(4), Iceland, Portugal, Slovakia, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Vietnam
and Namibia each (2), Bahrain, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Kuwait, Oman,
Saudi Arabia, ailand, United Arab Emirates, Cuba, Chile,
Egypt, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda each (1).
Impact: Impact of output has been examined using three dierent
indicators. ese are citations per paper, i-10 index and papers
not cited (PnC %). Details of these have been described below.
Citation per paper : e value of CPP for the global output is 16.5.
Data presented in Table 2 indicates that only the UK, Finland,
Canada, Denmark, Australia, Austria, Greece and Switzerland
had a higher value of CPP than 16.5. Among all the listed
countries in Table 2, the value of CPP is highest for Switzerland
followed by Greece. e value of CPP is almost equal for the UK
and Australia. Switzerland had the highest value of CPP, because
of the 18 papers published by Switzerland 11 were cited 10 or
more times. CPP was lowest for Brazil and Italy. Brazil had a low
CPP because of the 23 published papers only one paper was cited
10 or more times. Similarly, for Italy, ve of the 34 papers were
cited 10 or more times.
i-10 Index: Of the total 2,678 papers published during the study
period, 1,104 (41%) papers were cited 10 or more times. Of the
total 28 prolic countries (Table 2), 12 countries had a share
of papers with i-10 index equal or more than 41%. e highest
proportion of papers cited 10 or more times were contributed
by Greece (80%) followed by Austria (71.4%) and Switzerland
(61.1%). Other countries for which the share of i-10 index is
more than 41% in decreasing order are the UK (51.8%), Germany
(50.7%), Denmark (50%), Spain (48.2%), Finland (46.2%), the
Netherlands (44.4%), Norway (44.1%), Croatia (42.9%) and
Singapore (42.4%). i-10 index for the remaining 16 countries is
less than 41% and is the lowest for Brazil.
Papers not cited (PnC %): Of the 2,678 papers included in the
study, only a minuscule proportion (8.4%) papers remained
uncited and the rest were cited one or more times. Among
all the countries, Hungary contributed 46% of papers which
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024262
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
remained uncited. More than 15% papers remained uncited for
Belgium (23.1%), Brazil (21.7%), France (21.4%), China (18%)
and Denmark (15.7%) in that order. For remaining countries, the
share of uncited papers was less than 15%. No paper remained
uncited for Austria, Greece, Switzerland, Taiwan, Israel, Ireland
and New Zealand.
Prolic institutions and impact of their output
An analysis of data for institutional productivity found that
562 institutions located in dierent parts of the globe produced
the total output. Average number of institutions per paper is
2678/562=4.8. Prolic institutions producing 25 (~ 1%) or more
of the output have been listed in Table 3. e 21 institutions
listed in Table 3 produced more than one-third (39.2%) of the
global output and received about 44.2% of all the citations.
Remaining 541 institutions produced 60.8% of the total output
and received about 55.8% of all citations. Of the 21 institutions
listed in Table 3, seven were located in the UK and remaining
14 institutions were located in USA and Sweden three each,
China (2) and one each in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway,
Singapore and Slovenia. University of Sheeld topped the list
of contributing institutions. It also ranked rst in the study
undertaken by (Durgannavar et al., 2022) e CPP for these
21 prolic institutions is 18.6, which is slightly higher than the
Sl
No#
Country TNP TNC CPP i-10 index (%) PnC (%)
1. UK 735 (27.4) 15427 21.0 381 (51.8) 41 (5.6)
2. USA 484 (18.1) 6145 12.7 158 (32.6) 53 (11.0)
3. Finland 171 (6.4) 3377 19.7 79 (46.2) 10 (5.8)
4. China 167 (6.2) 1257 7.5 48 (28.7) 30 (18.0)
5. Sweden 135 (5.0) 1733 12.8 54 (40.0) 11 (8.1)
6. Canada 110 (4.1) 1981 18.0 42 (38.2) 5 (4.5)
7. Denmark 108 (4.0) 2090 19.4 54 (50.0) 17 (15.7)
8. Australia 90 (3.4) 1925 21.4 33 (36.7) 5 (5.6)
9. Germany 69 (2.6) 1043 15.1 35 (50.7) 7 (10.1)
10. Norway 68 (2.5) 1013 14.9 30 (44.1) 6 (8.8)
11. Spain 56 (2.1) 688 12.3 27 (48.2) 1 (1.8)
12. e Netherlands 45 (1.7) 682 15.2 20 (44.4) 0 (0.00)
13. Belgium 39 (1.5) 302 7.7 11 (28.2) 9 (23.1)
14. Italy 34 (1.3) 199 5.9 5 (14.7) 4 (11.8)
15. Singapore 33 (1.2) 244 7.4 14 (42.4) 4 (12.1)
16. Slovenia 32 (1.2) 317 9.9 13 (40.6) 2 (6.3)
17. Brazil 23 (0.9) 100 4.3 1 (4.3) 5 (21.7)
18. Austria 21 (0.8) 475 22.6 15 (71.4) 0 (0.00)
19. Greece 20 (0.7) 557 27.9 16 (80.0) 0 (0.00)
20. Switzerland 18 (0.7) 2114 117.4 11 (61.1) 0 (0.00)
21. Taiwan 18 (0.7) 168 9.3 5 (27.8) 0 (0.00)
22. Japan 17 (0.6) 190 11.2 4 (23.5) 1 (5.9)
23. Israel 16 (0.6) 162 10.1 5 (31.3) 0 (0.00)
24. Croatia 14 (0.5) 203 14.5 6 (42.9) 1 (7.1)
25. France 14 (0.5) 149 10.6 4 (28.6) 3 (21.4)
26. Ireland 14 (0.5) 116 8.3 4 (28.6) 0 (0.00)
27. New Zealand 14 (0.5) 116 8.3 4 (28.6) 0 (0.00)
28. Hungary 13 (0.5) 138 10.6 4 (30.8) 6 (46.2)
Sub-total 2578 (96.3) 41,917 16.3 1083 (42.0) 221 (8.5)
Other 34 countries 100 (3.7) 2272 22.7 21 (18.9) 4 (4.4)
Tota l 2678 (100.0) 44189 16.5 1104 (41.2) 225 (8.4)
Table 2: Distribution of output and impact of most prolic countries.
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024 263
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
global value of CPP, indicating that these institutions received
more citations than expected. Among these institutions, the value
of CPP is highest (27.5) for University College, London closely
followed by University of Tampere, Finland with a CPP value of
(25.5) and City University London (24.6). University of Tampere,
Finland also ranked second in terms of CPP for papers published
in the journal of “Library and Information Science Research” by
(Garg and Singh 2022). e CPP was less than the global CPP for
13 institutions. e CPP was less than 10 for Nankai University
(China), Wuhan University (China), Nanyang Technological
University (Singapore), University of Texas at Austin (USA),
Uppsala University (Sweden) and Drexel University (USA). It
indicates that the research output of these institutions does not
commensurate with the impact.
i-10 index: Of the 1050 papers published by the 21 prolic
institutions, slightly less than half (510, 48.6%) papers were cited
10 or more times. e highest share of papers cited 10 or more
times were contributed by University College London (UK) and
City University of London (UK). Sixty percent of pap ers published
by these two universities were cited 10 or more times. More
than y percent of papers published by University of Sheeld
(UK), Loughborough University (UK), University of Tampere
(Finland), University of Copenhagen (Denmark), University of
Strathclyde (UK) and Lund University (Sweden) were cited 10 or
more times. For the remaining 13 institutions, the proportion of
papers cited 10 or more times was less than 50%. Like CPP, the
lowest number of papers cited 10 or more times was for Uppsala
University (Sweden). Only 20% of papers published by Uppsala
University (Sweden) were cited 10 or more times.
Prolic authors and the impact of their output
e total output was produced by 1,841 authors. us, the average
number of authors per paper is 1.5. Table 4 lists 15 prolic authors
contributing eight or more papers during the study period of
2000-2023. Of the 15 prolic authors, seven were from the UK.
e remaining eight authors were from Finland (2) and one each
from USA, Denmark, China, Singapore, Slovenia and Sweden. Of
the 15 prolic authors two each were from University of Tampere
(Finland) and Loughborough University (UK). Remaining 11
authors were scattered among other 11 institutions scattered in
Sl
No
Institution TNP TNC CPP i-10 index (%)
1. University of Sheeld (UK). 132 (4.9) 3131 23.7 74 (56.1)
2. Loughborough University (UK). 97 (3.6) 1911 19.7 52 (53.6)
3. University of Tampere (Finland). 85 (3.2) 2164 25.5 47 (55.3)
4. University of Copenhagen (Denmark). 84 (3.1) 1980 23.6 49 (58.3)
5. University College London (UK). 78 (2.9) 2148 27.5 47 (60.3)
6. City University of London (UK). 76 (2.8) 1872 24.6 46 (60.5)
7. University of Strathclyde (UK). 65 (2.4) 1253 19.3 37 (56.9)
8. University of Boras (Sweden). 43 (1.6) 703 16.3 19 (44.2)
9. Robert Gordon University (UK). 40 (1.5) 457 11.4 16 (40.0)
10. Nankai University (China). 34 (1.3) 268 7.9 8 (23.5)
11. Wuhan University (China). 33 (1.2) 254 7.7 11 (33.3)
12. Rutgers, e State University of New Jersey (USA). 32 (1.2) 424 13.3 10 (31.3)
13. University of Wolverhampton (UK). 31 (1.2) 422 13.6 13 (41.9)
14. Nanyang Technological University (Singapore). 30 (1.1) 218 7.3 12 (40.0)
15. Drexel University (USA). 29 (1.1) 282 9.7 10 (34.5)
16. Oslo Metropolitan University (Norway). 29 (1.1) 365 12.6 11 (37.9)
17. University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). 28 (1.0) 287 10.3 12 (42.9)
18. Western University (Canada). 28 (1.0) 635 22.7 11 (39.3)
19. Lund University (Sweden). 26 (1.0) 405 15.6 14 (53.8)
20. University of Texas at Austin (USA) 25 (0.9) 194 7.8 6 (24.0)
21. Uppsala University (Sweden) 25 (0.9) 173 6.9 5 (20.0)
Sub-total 1050 (39.2) 19546 (44.2) 18.6 510 (48.6)
Other 541 institutions 1628 (60.8) 24643 (55.8) 15.1 614 (37.7)
Tota l 2678 (100.0) 44189 (100) 16.5 1124 (42.0)
Table 3: Distribution of output and impact of most prolic institutions.
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024264
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
dierent parts of the globe. ese 15 prolic authors published
191 (7.1%) papers. e remaining 92.9% papers were contributed
by 1,826 authors indicating a highly skewed distribution of
author productivity. Of the 1,826 authors, 1447 (~ 79.2%) authors
produced one paper only whereas the remaining 379 (20.7%)
authors produced two to seven papers. Savolainen, Reijo of the
University of Tampere (Finland) topped the list of the most
prolic authors with 24 papers. He was also found to be one of
the most prolic authors ranking second for papers published in
the journal “Library and Information Science Research” during
1994-2020. CPP is higher than global value (16.5) for eight
authors and for the remaining 7 authors; it is less than the global
value. Among all the authors, CPP is highest (67.3) for Hjorland,
B of the University of Copenhagen (Denmark). Ford, N of the
University of Sheeld (UK) ranked second in ranking based on
CPP. e value of CPP is lowest for Luyt, Brendan of the Nanyang
Technological University. Singapore. CPP is also less than 10 for
Huvila, Isto (Uppsala University, Sweden) and Gorichanaz, Tim
(Drexel University, USA). Authors explored the reason for the
high values of CPP for dierent authors. It is observed that 80%
papers published by Hjorland, B were cited 10 or more times and
almost an equal proportion (78%) of papers published by Ford, N
were also cited number 10 or more times. Other authors for whom
the proportion of papers cited 10 or more times is 50% or more
are elwall, Mike of the University of Wolverhampton (UK),
Zumer, M. of the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). However,
Zumer, M. had a low value of CPP as compared to Hjorland, B
and Ford, N.
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 oen
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 oen his/her articles have been cited in other
articles. Table 5 depicts the citation pattern of papers published
in the journal during 2000-2024 (March 5, 2024). During this
period, 1,278 papers received 22,204 citations. Of the total papers
included in the analysis only a minuscule number of 111(8.7%)
papers remained uncited and the remaining papers were cited
one or more times. Table 5 depicts details of the pattern of
citations. Of the total cited papers, about one-third (33.8%) were
cited between 1-5 times. Only 25 papers received 100 or more
citations. Of these only nine papers were cited more than 200
times. Table 7 lists 25 papers that were cited 100 or more times.
Highly cited papers
Table 6 lists 25 papers cited 100 or more times. ese 25 papers
attracted more than one-fourth (26.7%) of all citations. ese 25
papers originated from dierent institutions located in dierent
parts of the globe. e highest number of highly cited papers
was from the UK (8), Finland and Australia each four, USA (3),
Denmark (2) and one each from Switzerland, Canada, Turkey
and Norway. Two most highly cited papers which received
more than 500 citations originated from Swiss Federal Institute
Figure 1: Trend of Impact Factor and SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) from 2000 to 2022.
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024 265
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
of Technology Zurich (Switzerland) and Microso Research,
Cambridge (UK).
Since the number of citations received depends upon the citation
window, i.e., the time period for which citations were calculated.
e variation in citations was normalized by using Citation per
Year (CPY) used by (Garg and Tripathi 2017). Analysis of data
based on CPY results in a change in the ranking of authors
based on total citations. e rank remained unchanged for the
Number of
citations
Number of Papers
(%)
Total citations
Uncited 111 (8.7) 0
1 89 (7.0) 89
2 89 (7.0) 178
3 86 (6.7) 258
4 100 (7.8) 400
5 68 (5.3) 340
6-10 246 (19.2) 1907
11-20 217 (17.0) 3156
21-30 87 (6.8) 2179
31-40 66 (5.2) 2296
41-50 38 (3.0) 1702
51-99 56 (4.4) 3763
>100 25 (2.0) 5936
Tota l 1278 (100.0) 22204
Table 5: Pattern of citations.
Sl
No
Author Institution TNP TNC CPP i -10 index (%)
1. Savolainen, R University of Tampere, Finland. 24 (0.9) 570 23.8 13 (54.2)
2. Vakkari, P University of Tampere, Finland. 19 (0.7) 543 28.6 9 (47.4)
3. Ford, N e University of Sheeld, UK. 18 (0.7) 602 33.4 14 (77.8)
4. elwall, Mike University of Wolverhampton, UK. 16 (0.6) 379 23.7 11 (68.8)
5. Robinson, Lyn City University London, UK. 15 (0.6) 320 21.3 9 (60.0)
6. Oppenheim, C Loughborough University, UK. 14 (0.5) 361 25.8 8 (57.1)
7. Cox andrew e University of Sheeld, UK. 12 (0.4) 169 14.1 6 (50.0)
8. Gorichanaz, Tim Drexel University, USA. 10 (0.4) 96 9.6 4 (40.0)
9. Hjorland, B University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 10 (0.4) 673 67.3 8 (80.0)
10. Yu, Liangzhi Nankai University, China. 10 (0.4) 115 11.5 4 (40.0)
11. Luyt, Brendan Nanyang Technological Univ. Singapore. 9 (0.3) 43 4.8 3 (33.3)
12. Ruthven, Ian University of Strathclyde, UK. 9 (0.3) 196 21.8 4 (44.4)
13 Zumer, M University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. 9 (0.3) 126 14.0 6 (66.7)
14 Huvila, Isto Uppsala University, Sweden. 8 (0.3) 72 9.0 2 (25.0)
15 Morris, A Loughborough University, UK. 8 (0.3) 113 14.1 2 (25.0)
Sub-total 191 4378 22.9 103
Percent contributions 7.1 9.9 - 53.9
Other 1826 authors contributed 1-7 papers 2487 39811 16.01 1001
Percent contributions 92.9 91.9 - 40.2
Tota l 2678 (100) 44189 (100) 16.50 1104 (41.2)
Table 4: Highly prolic authors and impact of their output.
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024266
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
Sl No Bibliographic details Aliation TNC CPY
(Rank)
1. L Bornmann,and HD Daniel
J. Doc., 64(1), 2008, 45-80.
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
(Switzerland).
857 57 (1)
2. S Robertson
J. Doc., 60(5), 2004, 503-520.
Microso Research, Cambridge (UK). 678 36 (2)
3. D Bawden
J. Doc., 57(2), 2001, 218-259.
City University London (UK). 421 22 (3)
4. K Sparck Jones
J. Doc., 60(5), 2004, 493-502.
University of Cambridge (UK). 420 19 (5)
5. Z Liu
J. Doc., 61(6), 2005, 700-712.
San Jose State University (USA). 360 20 (4)
6. B Hjorland
J. Doc., 58(4), 2002, 422-462
University of Copenhagen (Denmark). 309 15 (6)
7. PJ McKenzie
J. Doc., 59(1), 2003, 19-40.
e University of Western Ontario (Canada). 300 15 (6)
*8. $A. Foster, and # N. Ford
J. Doc., 59(3), 2003, 321-340.
$University of Wales (UK)
#University of Sheeld, (UK).
268 13 (9)
*9. $S Talja,
#K Tuominen, and
$R Savolainen
J. Doc., 61(1), 2005, 79-101.
$University of Tampere (Finland)
#Library of Parliament (Finland).
201 11 (12)
*10. $M Baptista Nunes,
$F Annansingh,
$B Eaglestone, and
#R Wakeeld
J. Doc., 62(1), 2006, 101-119.
$University of Sheeld (UK)
#Kusala Web Developments Ltd, Sheeld (UK).
200 12 (11)
11. P Vakkari
J. Doc., 57(1), 2001, 44-60.
University of Tampere (Finland). 167 8 (18)
12. SS Kurbanoglu,B Akkoyunlu, and A Umay
J. Doc., 62(6), 2006, 730-743.
Hacettepe University (Turkey). 161 9 (16)
13. A Lloyd
J. Doc., 62(5), 2006, 570-583.
Charles Sturt University (Australia). 150 9 (16)
14. P Vakkari, N, and Hakala
J. Doc., 56(5), 2000, 540-562.
University of Tampere (Finland). 148 6 (20)
15. A Lloyd,M Anne Kennan,
KM ompson, and A Qayyum
J. Doc., 69(1), 2013, 121-144.
Charles Sturt University (Australia). 139 14 (8)
16. A Lloyd
J. Doc., 66(2), 2010, 245-258.
Charles Sturt University (Australia). 133 10 (13)
17. P Borlund
J. Doc., 56(1), 2000, 71-90.
University of Copenhagen (Denmark). 130 6 (20)
*18. $SA Williams,#MM Terras, and #C
Wa r wi c k
J. Doc., 69(3), 2013, 384-410.
$University of Reading (UK)
#University College London (UK).
127 13 (9)
Table 6: Highly cited papers.
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024 267
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
top seven authors, but changed for the remaining authors. For
example, the author ranked at 15 changed to rank 8 if arranged by
CPY. Similarly, the change in ranking of other papers can be seen
in Table 6. Of the 25 highly cited papers ve papers were authored
in domestic collaboration (# 8, 9, 10, 18 and 22).
Co-authorship Index
is measure was suggested by (Garg and Padhi 2011). e
methodology is similar to one used to calculate Activity Index
(AI) suggested by (Frame 1977) and elaborated by (Schubert and
Braun 1986). is is a technique for normalization of absolute
data. It indicates the type of co-authorship that dominates the
pattern of authorship. For details of co-authorship index readers
can see (Garg and Padhi 2001). To calculate CAI, authors have
divided the period of 24 years in four blocks each of six years. Data
presented in Table 7 indicates single authored papers dominated
in the beginning period of 2000-2005, while two authored papers
dominated during the period of 2006-2011 and multi-authored
papers dominated in the last phase of 2018-2023. is indicates
that no uniform pattern of authorship is being observed during
the study period.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
e Journal of Documentation is one of the most established
and prestigious scholarly publications in the eld of library and
information science and is regularly being published since 1945
by Emerald Group of Publishing. e present study examined
the chronological pattern of the growth of output, variations in
impact factor and SCImago ranking (SJR) of the journal during
2000-2023 and identied most prolic countries, institutions and
authors and their citation impact in terms of citation per paper,
i-10 index and papers not cited (PnC%). e study also examined
citation patterns of papers besides identifying highly cited papers.
e study found that the journal published 1,278 articles and
reviews with ~53 numbers of contributions per volume. e study
found an increasing trend in published papers, with the lowest
Sl No Bibliographic details Aliation TNC CPY
(Rank)
19. R Audunson
J. Doc., 61(3), 2005, 429-441.
Oslo University College (Norway). 120 7 (19)
20. C Ross,M Terras, C Warwick,and A
Welsh
J. Doc., 67(2), 2011, 214-237.
University College London (UK). 117 10 (13)
21. S Talja, and H Maula
J. Doc., 59(6), 2003, 673-691.
University of Tampere (Finland). 117 6 (20)
*22. $S Boon, $B Johnston,and
#S Webber
J. Doc., 63(2), 2007, 204-228.
$University of Strathclyde (UK)
#University of Sheeld (UK).
107 7 (19)
23. C Prabha,LS Connaway,
L Olszewski, and LRJenkins
J. Doc., 63(1), 2007, 74-89.
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
(USA).
105 7 (19)
24. A Catalano
J. Doc., 69(2), 2013, 243-274.
Hofstra University (USA). 101 10 (13)
25. A Lloyd
J. Doc., 65(3), 2009, 396-419.
Charles Sturt University (Australia). 100 7 (19)
Tota l 5936
*Papers published in domestic collaboration.
Period Single authored papers
(CAI)
Two-authored
papers (CAI)
Multi-authored papers
(CAI)
Total
2000-2005 94 (120) 51 (90) 39 (79) 184
2006-2011 113 (108) 85 (113) 48 (73) 246
2012-2017 148 (105) 107 (105) 76 (86) 331
2018-2023 188 (86) 149 (94) 180 (130) 517
Tota l 543 392 343 1278
Table 7: Pattern of authorship in the journal during dierent periods.
Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, Vol 3, Issue 3, Sep-Dec, 2024268
Garg, et al.: Bibliometrics of Journal of Documentation
number of papers in the rst block of 2000-2002 and the highest
number of articles in the last block of 2000-2023. e quantum
of output increased more than three times in the last block of
2021-2023 as compared to the rst block of 2000-2002. e
geographical distribution revealed that 62 countries contributed
to the journal with the highest share of papers from European
countries. e United Kingdom, the publishing country of the
journal, was the dominant country in terms of number of papers
and University of Sheeld (UK) topped the list of the most
prolic institutions. Most of the prolic institutions and authors
were also from European countries like the publishing countries.
Based on this, one can say that the journal is highly Eurocentric.
e pattern of output indicates a highly skewed distribution of
research output for countries, institutions and authors. Global
value of CPP is 16.5 and it is the highest for Switzerland followed
by Greece. e lowest i-10 index is for Brazil. e value of CPP is
the highest for University College London followed by University
of Tampere (Finland). However, the i-10 index is highest for the
University of Sheeld. Savolainen, Reijo of the University of
Tampere (Finland) topped the list of the most prolic authors
with 24 papers. Pattern of citations indicates that only a small
number of papers remained uncited and the remaining papers
were cited one or more times. Of the 25 papers that received 100
or more citations, eight were from the UK and remaining 17 were
from other eight countries. Two most highly cited papers which
received more than 500 citations originated from Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Zurich (Switzerland) and Microso
Research, Cambridge (UK). Analysis of data for the pattern of
co-authorship indicates that single authored papers dominated in
the beginning period of 2000-2005, while two authored papers
dominated during the period of 2006-2011 and multi-authored
papers dominated in the last phase of 2018-2023. is indicates
that no uniform pattern of authorship is being observed during
the study period.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
e authors declare that there is no conict of interest.
REFERENCES
Abdi, A., Idris, N., Alguliyev, R. M., & Aliguliyev, R. M. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of IPandM
journal (1980–2015). Journal of Scientometric Research, 7(1), 54–62. DOI: 10.5530/
jscires.7.1.8
Bharvi, D., Garg, K. C., & Bali, A. (2003). Scientometrics of the international journal
Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 56(1), 81–93. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021950607895
Dasgupta, S., Moniruzzaman, M., & Uddin, Md. N. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of
publications published in the journal of documentation during 1991–2013, DIU.
Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 95–106.
Dhanaraju, V., & Vemulapalli, R. (2021). Research in the journal of documentation during
2011–2020: A bibliometric analysis. Webology, 18(5), 3671-3689. http://www.
webology.org
Durgannavar, G. F., Verma, M. K., Sahoo, S., & Mamdapur, G. M. N. (2022). Fifty years (1970–
2019) journey of journal of documentation: A scientometric analysis of research
productivity and publication trends. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal),
6941. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/6941
Frame, J. D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and Caribbean. Interciencia, 2(3),
143–148. DOI. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1571135650184929536?lang=en
Gareld, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060),
471–479. http://www.gareld.library.upenn.edu/essays/V1p527y1962-73.pdf.
10.1126/science.178.4060.471
Garg, K. C., & Bebi. (2021). Collnet journal of scientometrics and information management:
A bibliometric study. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information
Management, 15(1), 47–61. DOI: 10.1080/09737766.2021.1920067
Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (2001). A study of collaborations in laser science and technology.
Scientometrics, 51(2), 415–427. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012709919544.
Garg, K. C., & Singh, R. K. (2022). Library and Information Science Research (LISR): A
bibliometric study of papers published during 1994–2020. DESIDOC Journal of
Library and Information Technology, 42(1), 57–63. DOI: 10.14429/djlit.42.2.17480
Garg, K. C., & Tripathi, H. K. (2017). Addendum to bibliometrics and Scientometrics in India
during 1995–2014: An overview of studies during 1995–2014. Annals of Library and
Information Studies, 64(3), 204–208. DOI. http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/ALIS/
article/view/19637/1381
Garg, K. C., Kumar, S., & Singh, R. K. (2020). Bibliometric study of the coverage and
overlap of journals indexed by four abstracting and indexing services in
library and information science. The Serials Librarian, 79(1–2), 118–130. DOI:
10.1080/0361526X.2019.1704341
Garg, K. C., Lamba, M., & Singh, R. K. (2020). Bibliometric Analysis of papers published
during 1992 to 2019 in DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology.
DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 40(6), 396–402. DOI:
10.14429/djlit.40.06.15741
Gaur, B., Singh, R. K., & Garg, K. C. (2023). Bibliometric Study of Papers Published During
2007 to 2021. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 43(6), 454–
461. 10.14429/djlit.43.06.18918
Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigo, J. M., & Popa, S. (2018). Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge
Management: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(8),
1655–1687. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0497
Giri, R., & Das, A. K. (2023). The Journal of Scientometric Research: A Statistical Outlook
of the First Eleven Volumes of the Journal. Journal of Scientometric Research, 12(3),
739–754. DOI: 10.5530/jscires.12.3.070
Journal of Documentation. (2019). “Journal information”. http://www.
emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id5jd. Retrieved
June 25, 2024
Mokhtari, H., Barkhan, S., Haseli, D., & Saberi, M. K. (2020). A bibliometric analysis
and visualization of the Journal of Documentation: 1945–2018. Journal of
Documentation, 77(1), 69–92. DOI: 10.1108/JD-08-2019-0165
Mukherjee, B. (2009). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology (2000-2007): A bibliometric study. IFLA Journal, 35(4), 341–358. DOI:
10.1177/0340035209352429
Roy, S. B., & Basak, M. (2013). Journal of Documentation: a Bibliometric Study. Library
Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 945. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
libphilprac/945
Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative
assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5–6), 281–
291. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017249.
SCImago journal rank (SJR). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCImago_Journal_
Rank. Retrieved May 5, 2024
Tsay, M., & Shu, Z. (2011). Journal bibliometric analysis: A case study on the
Journal of Documentation. Journal of Documentation, 67(5), 806–822.
DOI:10.1108/00220411111164682
Cite this article: Garg KC, Kumar S, Singh RK. Journal of Documentation: A Bibliometric Study of Papers Published from 2000 to 2023. Journal of Data
Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies. 2024;3(3):258-68.
