Growth of LIS research articles in India seen through scopus: a bibliometric analysis.
Barik, Nilaranjan ; Jena, Pushpanjali
1. Introduction:
Bibliometric study is widely used for mapping of scientific
research growth, authorship pattern, research collaboration,
author's productivity, etc. in any discipline of knowledge. Mainly
it is a best instrument in social science research for systematic
analysis of publication output of any subject, author, institution and
country. Bibliometrics is used to measure the qualitative and
quantitative research and to investigate the research trends in a
subject.
Library and Information Science is a very practical subject which
solve problems related to collection development, information retrieval,
systems design, user studies etc. LIS professionals are very vigorous to
show performance in disseminating knowledge as well as taking every
problem in a collaborative way. So, day by day LIS research is going on
to update the LIS professionals with the current trends and build a rich
collection of LIS publications. In this study an attempt have been made
to assess the year wise growth of LIS publications, authorship pattern,
authors' productivity etc. particularly in between the period of
2004-2014.
2. Literature Review
The investigator have referred so many research papers and articles
related to LIS research in India and abroad to have a clear
understanding of bibliometric analysis of LIS research growth India and
to find out some possible ways to carry out the present study smoothly
in a qualitative way. Khan, Ahmed, Munsi and Akhter (1998) in their
study present a statistical analysis of the LIS research papers emanated
from Bangladesh during 1966-1997. Result showed that, during this period
of study, a total number of 308 articles were authored by 116 library
professionals. Publications of such papers are highest in Bangladesh
with (256, 83.11%) and followed by India with (21, 6.82%). Tiew, Abrizah
& Kiran (2002) carried out a bibliometric study of the articles
published in Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science during
1996-2000 and found that the percentage of multi-authored articles was
slightly higher than the single authored articles. The most popular
subject according to this study was scientific and professional
publishing. Mittal & et. al. (2006) stated in their study
'Periodical Literature on Library and Information Science
Education: A bibliometric study' that literature growth on the area
of LIS has been found to be negative. Most of the papers have been
dominated by single author contributions at 72.8% and 72% of literature
are published in 72 journals. Patra and Chand (2006) have revealed that
Indian research output is less in Global visibility. Less numbers of LIS
research papers have published in international journals. Collaboration
among researchers is very poor with (25.37%). Ocholla and Ocholla (2007)
studied the journal research output in Library and Information Science
of South Africa from 1993-2006, using the database LISA, Thompson (ISI)
and Web of Science and found that South African LIS researchers largely
publish in local journals (46.3%). Among all the contributing journals,
South African Journal of Library and Information Science (SAJLIS) have
published highest numbers of articles with (25.1%). Another important
thing they revealed in their study that, LIS research collaboration is
encouraging in South Africa with (69%). Naseer and Mahmood (2009) have
revealed in their study "LIS Research in Pakistan: An Analysis of
Pakistan Library and Information Science Journal 1998-2007" that
Pakistan Library and Information Science Journal is a domestic journal
and highly dominated by the Pakistani authors. Again the state of
collaboration among authors is not very encouraging while majority of
the authors prefer to work in isolation. But the journal has witnessed
the increase of female authors' contribution. Verma (2009) stated
in his study 'Analysis of contributions to Defence Science
Journal' that most of the contributors prefer to contribute their
works with one companion. If, the source journal is a National journal
it could spread over 16 foreign countries. Park (2010) revealed a new
thing in her study "D-Lib magazine: Its first 13 years" that
the source journal is dominated by male authors with 74% of all
contributions, and 77% of authors made a single contribution to D-Lib
magazine during this study.
Thanuskodi (2010) stated in his study "Bibliometric Analysis
of the Journal Library Philosophy and Practice from 2005-2009" that
during the period of study highest number of articles published in the
subject area are Library and Internet with (21.69%) and about (59.8%) of
the contributors are from the University. Journals constituted as the
most cited sources of information with (53.03%). Hussain & Fatima
(2011) in their study 'A Bibliometric analysis of the Chinese
Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 2006-2010'
tried to find out the main characteristics of the source journal using a
bibliometric study. Khaparde (2011) stated in his study
"Bibliometric Study of Electronic Journal of Academic and Special
Librarianship." that single author contributions have dominated the
journal with 47.95% of contributions, and in geographical based
distribution of articles India have occupied the top position with
28.41% publications. Kumar and Moorthy (2011) revealed in their study
"Bibliometric Analysis of DESIDOC Journal of Library and
Information Technology during 2001-2010" that collaboration of
authors is less visible as single author and joint author contribution
are somewhat equal with 37.6% and 36.9% respectively. As the journal has
crossed 32 long years of publications, only after 2006 it could able to
increase the numbers of papers substantially. Mittal (2011) discovered
in her study a new trends of LIS research being conducted during that
time. She found in her study that LIS researchers were interested to
carry their research in the areas of open access, web 2.0, www,
internet, access to information etc. as these were the current area of
research in the field of LIS during that time. Thanuskodi (2011) in his
study "Library Herald Journal: A bibliometric study" opined
the same thing that 52.17% authors want for single author contribution.
Foreign author contribution to this journal is comparatively less with
10.15%. Jena, Swain and Sahoo (2012) revealed in their study
"Annals of Library and Information Studies, 2002-2010: A
Bibliometric Study" that the contribution of articles to each
volume of targeted journal is constantly increasing from year to year.
Also the collaborative research is visible in the journal and the two
authored articles have ranked top in the journal. Das (2013) revealed in
his study " Journal of Informetrics: A bibliometric profile"
that most of the contributions in the journals are joint author
collaboration. USA has produced highest portion of authors and the
impact factor of the journal is highest in the year 2011 with 4.229%.
Roy (2013) revealed in his study "Journal of Documentation: A
bibliometric study" that the degree of collaboration is 0.51 i.e.
majority of the library and information scientists prefer to contribute
their papers jointly. About 6.21% citations are self cited by the
respective authors. Maharana (2014) conducted a bibliometric analysis of
research growth and development of Sambalpur University using SCOPUS
database and found that the university's publications range ranges
from 38 to 83 papers with an annual average growth percent rate of 11.29
papers. A total of 1152 authors contributed 301 papers out of which 598
authors were affiliated to Sambalpur University. Again it is found that
Astrophysics and Space Science is the most favored journal among the
researchers of the university with 12 (3.98%) papers.
3. Objectives of the study
The present study deals with the following objectives;
* To know the year wise growth of LIS research articles in India;
* To know the authorship pattern of the articles published;
* To identify the authors' productivity and degree of
authors' collaboration;
* To know the subject orientation of articles and their
geographical distributions;
* To identify the most productive LIS authors and Journals; and
* To identify the average page length of LIS articles published
during 2004-2013
4. Methodology
The data for the study period 2004 to 2013 are retrieved from the
Scopus database using "Library and Information Science" and
"India" as the keyword for search. For limiting the search
results, other defined search criteria like Document type- Article,
Subject area- Social Science, Source type- Journal, country- India and
Year- 2004-2013 were used to find out the relevant data. A total of 385
numbers of articles were retrieved for the period of 2004-2013. All the
bibliographic data of the retrieved 385 articles were recorded in a MS
excel spreadsheet and the analyses of recorded data were done by simple
statistical percentage and average.
5. Data Analysis & Interpretation
Year wise growth of LIS Research Articles in India
Scopus database has indexed a total of 385 research articles in the
field of Library and Information Science in India during the period of
2004-2013. During this period of ten years, it is found that a highest
numbers of 80 (20.7%) articles have been indexed in the year 2013 and
followed by 68 (17.6%) articles in the year 2011. Similarly the lowest
numbers of articles were indexed in the year 2005, with 7 (1.9%).
Further, Table-1 shows a negative average growth rate (-20.23%) of LIS
research articles in the year 2005 and annual average growth rate at
(16.49 %).
To calculate the growth of LIS research articles, the method
applied was;
R = ([[Pp/[P.sub.0]].sup.l/n] - 1) x 100
Where;
R= Annual Research Growth in %
Pp= Publication Present
[P.sub.0] = Publication Original
N = Interval between Pp and Po
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Authorship pattern of the articles
Table-2 shows the seven types of authorship pattern used by their
collaboration of contribution in the articles during 2004-2013. The
numbers of articles contributed by each category of authorship pattern
have been distributed in the following table to make an easy
understanding of the authorship pattern. Two authors collaboration have
dominated with highest 169 (43.89%) articles followed by One author with
124 (32.20%) articles, Three authors with 73 (18.96%) articles and Four
authors with 13 (3.37%) articles. There are no contributions by six
authors' collaboration and only least number of contributions has
come out by [greater than or equal to] seven authors with 2 (0.53%)
articles.
Authors' productivity
Table-3 depicts the authors' productivity of the Indian LIS
research articles during 20042013. It is depicted from the table that
about 756 numbers of authors have contributed a total of 385 articles
and their Average Authors Per Article (AAPA) is found to be 1.96 and
Productivity Per Author (PPA) is 0.5. Amongst the 756 numbers of authors
maximum 731 authors were affiliated to India and their AAPA for Indian
authors is 1.89 and PPA is found to be 0.52.
Lotka's Law of scientific productivity
Lotka's inverse square law of scientific productivity is a
widely used law for bibliometric mapping of research outputs and
authors' productivity in any discipline of knowledge. Lotka's
law states that the number of authors making n contributions is about
1/[n.sup.2] of those making one; and the proportion of all contributors,
that make a single contribution, is about 60 percent. This means that
out of all the authors in a given field, 60 percent will have just one
publication, and 15 percent will have two publications, 7 percent of
authors will have three publications and so on. In table-4, Lotka's
law has been applied to the following data set, and result promulgated
that with one article contribution only 124 (32.20%) authors were both
observed and expected. Whereas for two articles contribution maximum 169
(43.89%) authors observed and 93 (24.15%) authors expected. Again for
three articles contribution highest 73 (18.96%) authors observed and 79
(20.51%) authors expected. So, in the following data set it is found
that the numbers of authors observed are somehow different with the
numbers of authors expected.
Lotk'a formula for scientific productivity of authors is as
follows;
[X.sup.n]Y= C and Y= C/[X.sup.n]
Where, X = number of publications, Y = relative frequency of
authors with 'X' publications and C = Constants depending on
the specified field.
Putting the value of X= 1 and Y= 124, the calculation obtained was;
1n.124= C
=> C=124
Again putting the value of X= 2 and Y= 169 and C= 124 the
calculation obtained were:
2n.169= 124
=> 2n= 124/169
=> n log 2= log 0.73
=> n (0.301)= 0.73
=> n =0.73/0.301
=> n =0.41
Degree of authors' collaboration
Degree of authors' collaboration examines the prominent area
of inquiry indicating the trend in patterns of single and joint
authors' publication. table-5, explains the applications of
Subramanian's equation to calculate degree of authors'
collaboration in different years. It is observed in the table that, the
degree of authors' collaboration has ranged from 0.2 to 0.57 during
the period of study and the mean value is found to be 0.36.
Subramanian's equation
C = Nm/Nm + Ns
C = degree of collaboration,
Nm = number of multi-authored work,
Ns = number of single-authored works.
Subject orientation of LIS research articles
Table-6, depicts the major subjects orientation of LIS research,
which shows that amongst the whole 385 articles, total 385 (100%)
articles have Social Sciences orientation, 125 (32.46%) articles have
computer Science orientation, 74 (19.22%) articles have Arts and
Humanities orientation and 14 (3.63%) articles have Decision Sciences
orientation. The lowest number of subject orientation have come up from
Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Engineering and Psychology having
1(0.25%) article each.
Geographical distribution of LIS articles
Geographical distribution of LIS research articles with
collaboration to foreign countries shows that amongst the 385 articles,
whole total 385 articles were contributed by authors of India. The
authors of Bangladesh and United States have contributed 3 (0.71%)
articles each. Lowest numbers of collaborative contributions have come
up from Kenya, Qatar and Switzerland with only 1 (0.25%) articles each.
Most productive LIS authors during 2004-2013
Table-8 reveals the rank list of most productive LIS authors based
on their numbers of contributions indexed in Scopus database. The table
shows the author's rank, country name and numbers of contributions
made during the period of study. Kademani, B. S. and Kumar, V. has
ranked 1st position with 13 numbers of articles contributed each.
Mukherjee, B. has ranked 2nd position with 11 numbers of contributions.
However, the third position has been occupied by Sagar, A. with 10
numbers of contributions.
Most productive LIS journals during 2004-2013
Bradford's Law is used in determining the increasing
productivity of number of core journals in any given field. The law
states the increasing productivity of journals from one zone to the next
in the mathematical expression 1:n:n2. According to Bradford's law
contributing journals can be divided into three equal zones, each
containing the same number of productivity. Table-9 depicts that first 2
journals produced 122 articles, next 6 journals produced 136 articles
and remaining 50 journals produced 127 articles which mostly meets the
Bradford's law of scattering of journals. Again it is found that
Library Philosophy and Practice have contributed highest 69 (17.92%)
articles and secured the number 1 rank. It is followed by DESIDOC
Journal of Library and Information Technology with 53 (13.76%) articles
and number 2 rank and Annals of Library and Information Studies have
raked 3 with 29 (7.53%) articles.
Average length of LIS research articles
In identifying of pages range of LIS research articles published
during 2004-2013, it is found that maximum 171 (44.43%) articles are
published under the pages range of 1-10 and it is followed by 133
(34.51%) articles within the pages rage of 11-20. Only 3 (0.78%)
articles were appended with 31 & more pages.
Conclusion and Findings
The present study has been summarized with the following research
findings;
* The publication of LIS research articles in India ranges from
7-80 articles with a yearly average growth of 16.49%.
* It is found that highest 169 (43.89%) articles have been
contributed by two authors collaboration.
* The Average Authors Per Articles (AAPA) was found to be 1.96 and
Productivity Per Authors (PPA) as 0.5. Whereas AAPA of Indian authors
was found to be 1.89 and PPA as 0.52.
* The study witnessed a poor International collaborative research
in the field of LIS. Only 23 (5.74%) articles out of 385 have been
contributed by the authors of foreign countries, which is comparatively
very low contribution.
* Kademani, B. S. and Kumar, V. are identified as most productive
LIS authors with a highest contribution of 13 (2.86%) articles.
* Library Philosophy and Practice has been identified as most
favored LIS journal having 69 (17.92%) articles publication out of 385
LIS research articles.
* Most of the LIS research articles are published within the pages
range of 11-20. Whereas the promulgated pages range is not healthy for a
research article.
* With the application of Lotka's law to the present data set,
it is revealed that the numbers of authors observed are somehow
different with the numbers of authors expected.
Caption: Diagram-1: Year wise growth of LIS Research Articles in
India
References
[1] Das, P. K. (2013). "Journal of Informetrics: A
bibliographic profile." DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information
Technology, 33(3), 243-252
[2] Hussain, A & Fatima, N. (2011) A bibliometric analysis of
the Chinese Librarianship: An International Electronic Journal,
2006-2010". Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic
Journal, 31
[3] Jena, K. L., Swain, D. K. & Sahoo, K. C. (2012).
"Annals of Library and Information Studies, 2002-2010: A
Bibliometric study". Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal),
Paper 716, retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/716
[4] Khan, M. S. I.; Ahmed, S. M. Z.; Munshi, M. N. U.; and Akhter,
N. (1998). "Library and Information science literature in
Bangladesh: a bibliometric study". Malaysian Journal of Library
& Information Science, 3(2), 11-34
[5] Khaparde, Vaishali (2011). "Bibliometric study of
Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship." British
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(2), 33-43
[6] Kumar, Manoj & Moorthy, A. L. (2011) "Bibliometric
Analysis of DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology during
2001-2010". DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology,
31(3), 203-208
[7] Maharana, Rabindra K. (2014). "Research growth and
development at Sambalpur University during 2008-2012: a bibliometric
analysis". Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 1073.
http:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1073
[8] Mittal, Rekha (2011). "Library and Information Science
Research Trends in India". Annals of Library and Information
Studies, 58, 319-325
[9] Mittal, Rekha & et al. (2006). "Periodical Literature
on Library and Information Science Education: A bibliometric
study". Annals of Library and Information Studies, 53 December,
224-229
[10] Naseer, M. M. and Mahmood, Dr. Khalid (2009). "LIS
Research in Pakistan: An Analysis of Pakistan Library and Information
Science Journal 1998-2007, Library Philosophy and Practice, accessed
from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/275/ dt. 01.03.2014
[11] Ocholla, D. N., and Ocholla, L. (2007). "Research in
Library and Information Science in South Africa: An analysis of journal
research output from 1993-2006". South African Journal of Libraries
and Information Science, 73(2) 109-118
[12] Park, T.K. (2010). "D-Lib Magazine: Its First 13
Years." Retrieved from http://www.
dlib.org/dlib/january10/park/01park.html on dt. 28.08.2013
[13] Patra, S. K. and Chand, Prakash (2006). "Library and
Information Science Research in India: A bibliometric study".
Annals of Library and Information Studies, 53, 219-223
[14] Roy, Sanku Bilas and Basak, Moutusi (2013). "Journal of
Documentation: a bibliometric study." Library Philosophy and
Practice, (e- journal), 945
[15] Tiew, W. S.; Abrizah, A.; and Kiran, K. (2002).
"Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 1996-2000: A
bibliometric study". Malaysian Journal of Library & Information
Science, 6(2), 43-56
[16] Thanuskodi, S. (2010). "Bibliometric Analysis of the
Journal Library Philosophy and Practice from 2005-2009". Library
Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), Paper 437, retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/437
[17] Thanuskodi, S. (2011). "Library Herald Journal: A
bibliometric study." Researchers World- Journal of Arts, Science
and Commerce, II (4), 68-76
[18] Verma, N. (2009). Analysis of Contributions to Defence Science
Journal". DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology,
29(6), 39-44
Nilaranjan Barik
KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, PIN-751024, Odisha,
India, nil.shyamanjana@gmail.com
Pushpanjali Jena
Reader & Head, P.G. Department of Library and Information
Science, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar-751004,
pjutkal87@yahoo.co.in
Table-1: Year wise growth of LIS research Publications
YEAR Number of Percentage Year wise growth
Publications of publications in (%)
2004 11 2.8 --
2005 7 1.9 -20.23
2006 21 5.4 24.05
2007 15 3.9 8.06
2008 27 7.1 19.67
2009 35 9.1 21.27
2010 57 14.8 26.49
2011 68 17.6 25.57
2012 64 16.7 21.61
2013 80 20.7 21.94
TOTAL 385 100 16.49(mean)
Table-2: Authorship pattern used in the articles
Year Authorship Pattern used in the articles
one Two Three Four
2004 5 3 2 1
2005 3 2 0 1
2006 4 9 4 4
2007 2 7 4 0
2008 7 16 3 0
2009 19 11 4 0
2010 17 24 14 2
2011 24 25 19 0
2012 21 31 10 2
2013 22 41 13 3
TOTAL * 124 169 73 13
(32.2) (43.89) (18.96) (3.37)
Year Authorship Pattern used in the articles
Five Six > Six TOTAL *
2004 0 0 0 11 (2.85)
2005 0 0 1 07 (1.84)
2006 0 0 0 21 (5.45)
2007 1 0 1 15 (3.89)
2008 1 0 0 27 (7.03)
2009 1 0 0 35 (9.09)
2010 0 0 0 57 (14.80)
2011 0 0 0 68 (17.66)
2012 0 0 0 64 (16.62)
2013 1 0 0 80 (20.77)
TOTAL * 4 0 2 385
(1.05) (0.0) (0.53) (100.0)
* Figure within the deviation represents percentage
Table-3: Authors' Productivity
Year Authors' Productivity
Total No. Total No. Total Total
of of AAPA PPA
Articles Authors
2004 11 21 1.9 0.52
2005 7 20 2.85 0.35
2006 21 50 2.38 0.42
2007 15 40 2.66 0.37
2008 27 53 1.96 0.5
2009 35 58 1.65 0.6
2010 57 115 2.01 0.49
2011 68 131 1.92 0.51
2012 64 121 1.89 0.52
2013 80 147 1.83 0.54
TOTAL 385 756 1.96 0.5
Year Authors' Productivity
Authors only India India
affiliated to AAPA PPA
India
2004 20 1.81 0.55
2005 20 2.85 0.35
2006 46 2.19 0.45
2007 38 2.53 0.39
2008 51 1.88 0.52
2009 56 1.6 0.62
2010 110 1.92 0.51
2011 129 1.89 0.52
2012 119 1.85 0.53
2013 142 1.77 0.56
TOTAL 731 1.89 0.52
Note: A verage Authors Per Article=
Number of Authors / Number of Articles
Productivity Per Author= Number of
Articles/ Number of Authors
Table-4: Lotka's Law of Scientific productivity
No. of No. of Percentage No. of Authors Percentage (%)
Articles Authors (%) Expected (Expected)
(x) Observed (Observed) (n= 0.41)
(y)
1 124 32.20 124 32.20
2 169 43.89 93 24.15
3 73 18.96 79 20.51
4 13 3.37 70 18.18
5 4 1.03 64 16.62
6 0 0.00 59 15.32
7 1 0.25 56 14.54
8 0 0.00 53 13.76
9 1 0.25 50 12.98
10 0 0.00 48 12.46
>10 0 0.00 [less than or [less than or
equal to] 48 equal to] 12.46
Table-5: Degree of authors' collaboration
Authors' Degree of Collaboration
Year Single Authors Multiple Authors (Ns+Nm) Degree of
(Ns) (Nm) Collaboration
2004 5 6 11 0.54
2005 3 4 7 0.57
2006 4 17 21 0.23
2007 2 13 15 0.2
2008 7 20 27 0.29
2009 19 16 35 0.57
2010 17 40 57 0.31
2011 24 44 68 0.36
2012 21 43 64 0.34
2013 22 58 80 0.28
TOTAL 124 261 385 0.32 (mean)
Table-6: Subject orientation of articles
Subject orientation Total Articles Percentage
of articles (N=385) (%)
Social Sciences 385 100.00
Computer Science 125 32.46
Arts and Humanities 74 19.22
Decision Sciences 14 3.63
Business, Management and Accounting 7 1.81
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 0.51
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 0.25
Engineering 1 0.25
Psychology 1 0.25
Table-7: Geographical distribution of LIS research articles
Rank Name of the Country Total Contributions Percentage
(N=385) (%)
1 India 385 100.00
2 Bangladesh 3 0.71
2 United States 3 0.71
3 Antigua 2 0.51
3 Belgium 2 0.51
3 China 2 0.51
3 Iran 2 0.51
3 Malaysia 2 0.51
3 Saudi Arabia 2 0.51
3 Swaziland 2 0.51
4 Kenya 1 0.25
4 Qatar 1 0.25
4 Switzerland 1 0.25
Table-8: Most productive LIS Authors' during 2004-2013
Sl.No Rank LIS Authors Country Contributions Percentage
(N=385)
1 1 Kademani, B.S. India 13 2.86
2 1 Kumar, V. India 13 2.86
3 2 Mukherjee, B. India 11 2.42
4 3 Sagar, A. India 10 2.21
5 4 Panda, K.C. India 9 1.98
6 4 Mahajan, P. India 9 1.98
7 4 Thanuskodi, S. India 9 1.98
8 5 Kalyane, V.L. India 8 1.76
9 5 Madhusudhan, M. India 8 1.76
10 5 Gul, S. India 8 1.76
11 6 Kumar, S. India 7 1.54
12 7 Khan, A.M. India 6 1.33
13 7 Gupta, D.K. India 6 1.33
14 7 Swain, D.K. India 6 1.33
15 8 9 authors 5 45 9.92
Articles each
16 9 9 authors 4 36 7.93
Articles each
17 10 24 authors 3 72 15.86
articles each
18 11 74 authors 2 148 32.59
articles each
19 12 30 authors 1 30 6.60
article each
Table-9: Most productive LIS Journals during 2004-2013
No. of Percentage
Rank Contributing Journals articles (%)
1 Library Philosophy and Practice 69 17.92
2 DECIDOC Journal of Library and 53 13.76
Information Technology
3 Annals of Library and Information 29 7.53
Studies
4 International Information and 27 7.02
Library Review
5 Electronic Library 26 6.75
6 Malaysian Journal of Library and 22 5.72
Information Science
7 Scientometrics 17 4.42
8 Library Review 15 3.89
9 Library Hi Tech News 13 3.38
9 Program 13 3.38
10 Webology 11 2.85
11 2 numbers of journal with 7 articles 14 3.63
12 2 numbers of journal with 6 articles 12 3.12
13 1 number of journal with 5 articles 5 1.29
14 3 numbers of journal with 3 articles 9 2.34
15 11 numbers of journal with2 articles 22 5.72
16 28 numbers of journal with 1 article 28 7.28
TOTAL 385 100
Cumulative
Rank
No. of Percentage
articles (%)
1 69 17.92
2 122 31.68
3 151 39.21
4 178 46.23
5 204 52.98
6 226 58.70
7 243 63.12
8 258 67.01
9 271 70.39
9 284 73.77
10 295 76.62
11 309 80.25
12 321 83.37
13 326 84.66
14 335 87.00
15 357 92.72
16 385 100.00
Table-10: Average length of papers
Page Range Average length of papers
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0 0 0 2 1 11 7
1-10 5 3 8 4 4 17
11-20 5 3 9 9 8 9
21-30 1 1 2 0 4 2
[greater than or 0 0 0 1 0 0
equal to] 31
TOTAL 11 7 21 15 27 35
Page Range Average length of papers
2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL Percent
(%)
0 1 26 2 1 51 13.25
1-10 28 22 31 49 171 44.43
11-20 25 16 25 24 133 34.51
21-30 3 4 5 5 27 7.03
[greater than or 0 0 1 1 3 0.78
equal to] 31
TOTAL 57 68 64 80 385 100.00
