Authorship Distribution and Collaboration in LIS Open Access Journals: A Scopus based analysis during 2001 to 2015.
Barik, Nilaranjan ; Jena, Puspanjali
Authorship Distribution and Collaboration in LIS Open Access Journals: A Scopus based analysis during 2001 to 2015.
Introduction
Scientific publishing is undergoing significant changes due to
immense growth of online publications and increases in the number of
open access journals. Most leading publishers like Elsevier, Taylor and
Francis, Springer and others have introduced open access journals in a
big way and their acceptance among authors for publishing articles has
also increased. Open access journals are gaining its popularity because
of free availability of articles on the public internet, permitting any
users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the
full texts of these articles. As the numbers of open access journals are
growing in a big way, it's a challenge for the authors to identify
the best journals for their research and publications. So, the present
study entitled "Authorship Distribution and Collaboration in LIS
Open Access Journals: A Scopus based analysis during 2001 to 2015"
is an attempt to analyzed the authorship pattern, collaboration index,
degree of collaboration, collaboration coefficient, author productivity,
and ranking of prolific authors of LIS open access journals covered in
the study during the period 2001 to 2015. The study will be a useful for
the authors and researchers in the field of Library and Information
Science to be aware about the ongoing trend of authorship, research
collaboration, author's productivity of LIS open access journals.
Literature Review
The author have referred so many research papers and articles
related to authorship studies of LIS journals to have a clear
understanding of ongoing trend of authorship studies and to find out
some possible ways to carry out the present study smoothly in a
qualitative way.
Parameswaran and Smitha (2001) examine the 60 issues of Library and
Information Science Abstracts (LISA), published from 1994-1998, and
reveal that single authors publications were greater in number than
collaborative work as covered by LISA. Tiew, Abdullah and Kaur (2001)
carry out a bibliometric examination of all the journal articles
published in the Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science
from 1996-2000 and reveal that the percentage of multi-authored papers
is slightly higher at 52.6%. Bharvi, Garg and Bali (2003) analyze the
1317 papers published in first fifty volumes during 1978 to 2001 of the
international journal of Scientometric and show that the journal is
dominated by the single authored papers; however, multi authored papers
are gaining momentum. Similar pattern has been observed for domestic and
international collaboration. Uzun (2004) identifies an increase in the
share of collaborative papers contributed by authors in JASIST, Journal
of Documentation, Journal of Information Science (JIS), and Information
Processing & Management (IP&M). Mittal, Sharma & Singh
(2006) present in their study of 536 papers covering to library and
information science education from 1995 to 2004 and reveal that most of
the papers are contributed by single authors (72.8%) contribution and
only less numbers of papers are collaborated by two and more authors.
Verma, Rajnish and Priyanka (2007) reveal that most of the contributions
of the journal Annals of Library and Information Studies are contributed
by single author. Mukherjee (2009) reveals the collaborative authorship
pattern of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology (JASIST) during the period 2000 to 2007. Park (2010)
studies the authorship characteristics of journal D-Lib Magazine and
reveals that the source journal is dominated by single author
contributions with 77% of papers. Pradhan and Chandrakar (2011) find in
their study that Indian LIS authors' contribution to scholarly
publication is moving towards single to two authors as 75.88 % articles
covered in the study are contributed by two authors. Thanuskodi (2011)
presents the authorship pattern of the journal Library Herald for the
period 2006 to 2010 and reveals that out of 138 articles covered in the
study single author contributions are 72 (52.17%) articles and rest 66
(47.83%) articles are contributed by joint authors. Warraich and Ahmad
(2011) analyze Pakistan Journal of Library and Information Science
(PJLIS) during 1995 to 2010 and reveal that the authors'
collaboration is clearly visible in the journal PJLIS. Ardanuy (2012)
analyzes the level of co-authorship of Spanish research in Library and
Information Science (LIS) until 2009 and found a significant increase in
all co-authorship, including publications in English and those involving
international collaboration. Priya and Khaparde (2012) elucidate the
trends of authorship pattern and authors' collaborative research in
their study covering with a sample of 12263 LIS articles that single
authored contributions are dominant in the journal Library Management.
Thanuskodi (2012) shows the authorship pattern of DESIDOC Journal of
Library and Information Technology covering to a total of 199 articles
published in the journal and finds that 116 articles, out of 199
articles are contributed by joint authors while the rest 83 articles are
contributed by single author. Yank and Lee (2012) assess the research
patterns and trends of library and information science (LIS) in Korea
and find an increasing trend for research collaboration among LIS
authors. Ardanuy (2013) shows the scientific output of Library and
Information Science in Spain during 2006-2010 and reveal that the
authorship pattern of published works indicates towards multi
authorship. Barik and Jena (2013) analyse the authorship patterns of
journal Trends in Information Management and reveal that the source
journal is dominant by joint authorship pattern. The degree of
authors' collaboration is not so strong in the journal. However,
the journal constitutes 28% of foreign authors' contributions.
Khaparde (2013) reveals in the study E- Journals in Library and
Information Science: A bibliometric study that joint authorship has
dominated the research where male authors have the dominance over gender
with (66.28%) of total publications and collaborative research with
(64.11%) publications. Khurshid (2013) measures the quality of articles
published in foreign LIS journals by Pakistani authors and reveals that
the authorship patterns show a shift from single-authorship to
collaborative authorship. Pandita (2013) undertakes a bibliometric study
of Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS) journal during the
last decade and finds that 65.81% articles of the journal are
contributed on co-authorship pattern. Swain, Swain and Rautaray (2013)
examine the scholarly communications in Library Review (LR) from 2007 to
2011 and to reveal that single authored articles occupy the prominent
position indicating the supremacy of solo research in Library Review.
The degree of collaboration in the publications of this journal is found
to be 0.36. Satpathy, Maharana and Das (2014) investigate the scholarly
communications in open access journals of Library & Information
Science and show that single authored papers are found to be the highest
(40.48 percent), followed by two-authored and then three-authored
papers. The degree of collaboration is found to be between 0.33 and 0.8.
Singh and Chander (2014) explore the authorship pattern of the journal
Library Management, and highlight that the journal has produced majority
of the contributions by single authors during the period 2006-2012.
Swain (2014) shows the authorship patterns of International Information
and Library Review from 2004 to 2013 and highlights that majority of
papers are published in single authorship mode followed by
two-authorship mode. It is seen that contributions in three-authorship
and more than three-authorship mode are quite less. The degree of
collaboration is found to be 0.45, indicating less intensity of
collaborative trend of research. Das (2015) highlights the authorship
pattern and research collaboration in the area of Informetrics based on
420 scholarly communications appeared in the Journal of Informetrics
during 2007 to 2013. Study illustrates various significant aspects like
types and trends of authorship, author productivity, degree of
collaboration, collaborative index, geographical diffusion and
institutional diversification of authorship. Swain (2015) shows the
authorship patterns of Library Hi Tech from 2004 to 2013 and highlights
that the majority of papers are produced in single authorship mode
followed by two-authorship mode. The degree of collaboration (DC) in
Library Hi Tech publications is found to be 0.519 indicating less
intensity of collaborative trend of research. Verma, Sonkar and Gupta
(2015) show the authorship pattern of Library Philosophy and Practice
from 2005 to 2014 and reveal that single authorship is leading
authorship trend in the journal and the rate of degree of collaboration
is 0.51. Vellaichamy and Jeyshankar (2015) analyse the 158 papers
published in the journal Webology during the period 2004-2013 and reveal
that single authorship possess a lead role in the journal. Zakaria
(2015) studies the authorship pattern of Arab Librarians who published
in Library and Information Science journals. The study analyses the
journal research publications in Library and Information Science
journals by professional librarians from 1981 to 2010. Single-author
articles are found to be highly followed by two and three authored
articles. The average degree of collaboration between authors in Library
and Information Science journals is 9.64% (only 19 journal articles
written by at least two or three authors). Khan (2016) explores the
bibliometric analysis of the LIBRI: International Journal of Libraries
and Information Services during the period of 2011-2015. The result
shows that out of 140 research articles 63(45%) articles are contributed
by single authored whereas, 77(55%) articles were contributed by
multi-authored. The average degree of author collaboration was 0.55
which ranges from 0.57 to 0.58. Shukla and Moyon (2017) analyze the
bibliometric analysis of Indian open access LIS journal for five years
from 2011 to 2015 covering 218 publications and reveal that two
authorship patterns is prevelant with 0.66 degree of collaboration.
Suresh (2017) examines authorship pattern of 556 papers published in
Journal of Documentation during 2003 to 2015 and finds that almost half
of the total publications published by single authors.
Objectives of the study
The main objectives of the present study are;
* To establish an idea on yearly distribution of publications of
LIS open access journals,
* To know the journal wise distribution of authorship pattern,
* To identify the strength of Single Vrs Collaborative authorship,
* To identify the Collaborative Index (CI), Degree of Collaboration
(DC), and Collaborative Coefficient (CC) of authors,
* To study the author's productivity,
* To trace authorship patterns by country of authors, and most
prolific authors
Scope & Limitations
The scope of the present study is limited to only open access
journals published in the field of Library and Information Science and
indexed in Scopus database. The study is to focus on the journals which
are only registered under Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and
indexed for a period of 15 years uninterruptedly. The period of study is
to cover from the year 2001 to 2015. The source journals are identified
by consulting the Scopus database pertaining to the following criterion
to avoid unnecessary influence and ambiguity in selecting the journals.
The criterion followed are: i) The journal must have published in an
open access platform and registered in Directory of Open Access Journals
(DOAJ; ii) The journal must have indexed in Scopus database for a period
of 15 years continuously from the year 2001-2015 and there must not be
discontinuation of any year; iii) Publication status of journal must be
showing Active as on 31st December, 2015.
Based on the aforesaid criterion for selecting of journals, the
study found 10 numbers of Scopus indexed open access Library and
Information Science journals fitting to the study. The journals covered
in the study with their abbreviation are; i) College and Research
Libraries (LRL), ii) D-Lib Magazine (D-Lib), iii) Information Research
(IR), iv) Information Technology and Libraries (ITL), v) Informing
Sciences (IS), vi) Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA),
vii) LIBER Quarterly (LIBERQ), viii) Library and Information Science
Research (LISR), ix) Libres (LIBRES), x) School Library Media Research
(SLMR).
Methodology
The publications of selected 10 journals were searched individually
one by one ranging from the year 2001 to 2015 in the Scopus database.
The required data were exported in an excel spreadsheet and analyzed
using some statistical methods like average, mean, percentage etc. The
gathered data were tabulated for final presentation of the results.
Results & Discussions
Year wise Distribution of LIS Open Access Publications
Table 1 depicts the year wise distribution of 10 LIS open access
journals covered in the study. During the period 2001 to 2015, a total
numbers of 5208 publications are indexed in Scopus database. The year
wise distribution of publications show that in the year 2002, a highest
number of 433(8.31%) publications were witnessed followed by the year
2003 with 416(7.99%) publications, and 2006 with 405(7.78%)
publications. The year 2013 has witnessed a very low numbers of
publications with 285(5.47%).
It is observed in the study that, the year wise distribution of
journals do not show any increasing trend, however the cumulative
numbers of distribution shows a steady growth of publications. Further
it is seen that, not a single journal is strict to a constant numbers of
publications by its issues or by its volumes. Every journal has a
distribution of random numbers of publications in each year. Figure 1
shows the year wise distribution of publications.
Distribution of Authorship Pattern
Table 2 shows the authorship pattern of the LIS open access
journals covered in the study. During the period 2001 to 2015, single
authorship contribution is dominant with highest 2791(53.59%)
publications, followed by two authorship contribution with 1209(23.21%)
publications, and three authorship contribution with 627(12.04%)
publications. The data set shows that, there are no such established
research groups in this area or the researchers are not interested to
publish their research by collaborative authorship. Further, the study
throws light in the journal wise authorship pattern and finds that, JMLA
is the only LIS open access journals having [greater than or equal to] 2
mean authorship while other journals have [greater than or equal to] 1
mean authorship. The average mean of authorship has found to be 1.93.
This means the authorship pattern of LIS open access journals clearly
indicates towards single authorship publications.
Further it is observed that D-Lib has produced highest 2579(25.59%)
authorship followed by JMLA with 2322(23.04%) authorship and IR with
1230(12.21%) authorship. The lowest percentage of authorship has been
contributed by the journal SLMR with 173(1.72%). Figure 2 illustrates
the authorship pattern and mean of authorship of the LIS open access
journals covered in the study.
Single Authorship Vrs Collaborative Authorship
In the present study, table 3 shows the number of single vrs
collaborative authored publications. Single authored publications have
shown an increasing trend throughout the period of study except the
years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. Out of 5208 publications highest
2791(53.59%) publications were contributed with Single Authorship and
only 2417(46.41%) publications were contributed by Collaborative
Authorship contribution. Further it is seen that a total of 10077
authorship have been counted for 5208 publications. The mean of
authorship per publication is seen at 1.95 which is less than 2 or far
from collaboration. So, the present dataset shows that LIS open access
journals do not favor collaborative research. The year wise Single
authorship Vrs Collaborative authorship is depicted in figure 3.
Collaborative Index (CI), Degree of Collaboration (DC), and
Collaborative Coefficient (CC) among authors
The Collaborative Index (CI), Degree of Collaboration (DC), and
Collaborative Coefficient (CC) among authors in LIS open access journals
covered in the study are shown in table 4. Collaborative Index is a mean
number of authors per publication. The formula used to identify
Collaborative Index of authors per publication is; CI = (total
publications)/ (total collaborative authors). The CI mean value in the
present study shows to be 0.73 which is so weak at its label.
For analysis of Degree of Collaboration among authors, the study
has applied the Subramanian's equation of C = ([N.sub.m]/[N.sub.m]
+ [N.sub.s]) where; C = degree of collaboration, [N.sub.m] = number of
multi-authored work, and [N.sub.s] = number of single-authored works to
examine the extent of research collaboration among LIS authors and
prominent area of inquiry indicating the patterns of single and joint
authors' publication. It is observed that, the DC value has ranged
up and down from minimum 0.58 to maximum 0.87 which shows a weak
intensity of author's collaboration at 0.72. Correspondingly, the
Collaboration Co-efficient value which measures the extent and strength
of collaboration among the authors shows at 0.29 which is also so weak
at its level. This implies that, the LIS open access journals are far
from collaborative research. Figure 4 clearly shows the graphical
presentation of CI,DC, and CC values of LIS open access journals.
Author's Productivity and Applicability of Lotka's Law
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. Table 5 shows the
author's productivity and applicability of Lotka's law to the
following data set. The study finds that with one article contribution
2791 (53.59%) authors are both observed and expected. Whereas for two
articles contribution 1209 (23.21%) authors are observed and 1223
(23.48%) authors expected. Again for three articles contribution
627(12.04%) authors observed and 755(14.50%) authors expected. So, in
this following data set it is found that the numbers of authors observed
are somehow equal with the numbers of authors expected. So, the study
fits to Lotka's law of scientific productivity. Figure 5 shows the
authors observed and authors expected value for the present data set.
Lotk'a formula for scientific productivity of authors has been
applied in the present study as [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 = 2791, the calculation obtained
is;
1n.2791 = C
=> C=2791
Again putting the value of X = 2 and Y = 1209 and C = 2791 the
calculation obtained is;
2n.1209 = 2791
=> 2n= 2791/1209
=> nlog2 = log2.308
=> n(0.301) = 0.361
=> n= 2.30/0.301
=> n=1.19
Testing of K-S Goodness-of-Fit for Author's Productivity
The K-S (Kolmogorov- Smirnov) test is a statistical method to test
the applicability of Lotka's Law to a set of data. The K-S test
determines the maximum deviation of D, where D= Max [Fo(x)-Sn(x)]
Fo(x) = Theoretical cumulative frequency function
Sn(x) = Observed cumulative frequency function of a sample of n
observations.
At a 0.01 level of significance, the K-S statistics is equal to
1.63/[square root] n. If D is greater than the K-S statistics, then the
sample distribution does not fit the theoretical distribution. In the
present study, table 6, shows the value of D is -0.0067 which is lesser
than the K-S statistics i.e. 1.63/[square root] 5208= 0.0225. The value
of D is lesser than 0.0225, and therefore Lotka's generalized
formula with exponent value "n"= (1.19), somehow fit to the
LIS open access publications.
Ranking of Prolific Authors
The study have identified 10077 authorship for publication of 5208
papers across the 83 countries (excluding unidentified countries) of the
world during the period 2001 to 2015. It is observed that in the rank of
20 most prolific authors, there are 108 authors have been identified.
Out of these 108 authors 82 from United States, 7 from UK, 4 each from
Canada and Italy, 3 from Australia, 2 each from Israel and Netherlands,
and 1 each from Austria, Finland, Germany, and South Korea. Wilson, B.
of Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Reston, United States
has contributed maximum 74(1.42%) papers and ranked top amongst all
contributing authors. The other most prolific authors are Hernon, P. of
Simmons College, Boston, United States with 62(1.19%) papers, followed
by Schwartz, C. of Simmons College, Boston, United States with 55(1.06%)
papers, Wilson, T of USA with 45(0.86%) papers, and Lannom, L. of
Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Reston, United States
with 35(0.67%). A detailed list of prolific authors is depicted in table
7.
Most cited Authorship
Table 8 shows the most cited authorship of LIS open access journals
during the period 2001 to 2015. Amongst the 10077 authorship across the
83 countries, the most cited authors have been identified based on their
citations count. Wilson T.D. is in top among all the authors with
407(0.94%) citations followed by Hammond T., Hannay T., Lund B., Scott
J. with 294(0.68%) citations, Levy Y., Ellis T.J. with 277(0.64%)
citations and so on. It is seen that among the top 100 highly cited
authorship, there are 37 highly cited authorship are from single
authorship contribution and 63 are from collaborative contribution. So,
the trend shows that collaborative contributions are highly cited by LIS
authors and researchers. Table 9 shows the detailed list of most cited
authorship.
Country wise Authorship Distribution
The country wise distribution of authorship has been counted based
on the country of origin of the corresponding author. Authors from 83
countries (excluding unidentified countries) across the world are active
in publication of their research in LIS open access journals. Amongst
them authors from America and Europe are the leaders. Table 9 shows that
United States of America (USA) is the top country producing of
2822(54.19%) authors alone followed by United Kingdom (UK) with
372(7.14%) authors, Canada with 242(4.65%) authors, Australia with
176(3.38%) authors and so on. United States of America alone contributes
more than fifty percent of authorship to the LIS open access journals.
Amongst the Asian countries China, Singapore and Taiwan are much ahead
of India. The developing countries like India should give more emphasis
on their authors to aware them for open access publications.
Key Findings
The key findings of the study are presented as under:
* During the period 2001-2015, it is observed in the study that,
the year wise distribution of journals do not show any increasing trend,
however the cumulative numbers of distribution shows a steady growth of
publications.
* The authorship pattern of LIS open access journals shows that
single authorship contribution is dominant with highest 2791(53.59%)
publications.
* The Collaborative Index mean value in the present study shows to
be 0.73 which is so weak at its label. The Degree of Collaboration value
shows a weak intensity of author's collaboration at 0.72.
Correspondingly, the Collaboration Co-efficient value shows at 0.29
which is also so weak at its level. This implies that, the LIS open
access journals do not favour for collaborative research.
* The value of D is lesser than 0.0225, and therefore Lotka's
generalized formula with exponent value "n"= (1.19), somehow
fit to the LIS open access publications.
* Wilson, B. of Corporation for National Research Initiatives,
Reston, United States has contributed maximum 74(1.42%) papers and
ranked top amongst all contributing authors. Based on the citations
count Wilson T.D. is in top among all the authors with 407(0.94%)
citations.
* Authors from 83 countries across the world are active in
publication of their research in LIS open access journals. Amongst them
authors from America and Europe are the leaders, and United States of
America (USA) is the top country producing of 2822(54.19%) authors alone
Conclusion
The present day research is fast embracing open access platforms
because of greater visibility of publications with considerable impact
and influence. As it has posed tough challenges for LIS researchers,
academicians and librarians to select specific journals that promise
quality and impact, some front line open access journals have proved
their mettle to be chosen as the right channel of publications to follow
suit. Contextually, the present study has rightly addressed the trends
of authorship, research collaboration, author's productivity,
prolific authors, geographical distribution of authors of 10 selected
open access LIS journals that have gained immense popularity with high
reputation. Geographically scattered contributors and the quantum of
citations received by different articles published in these open access
journals indicates the quality of publications brought out by these
journals. This in fact, will motivate the LIS researchers, academicians
and librarians to bank on open access journals to insure academic and
research excellence in different parts of the world.
References
Ardanuy, J. (2012). Scientific collaboration in library and
information science viewed through the web of knowledge: The spanish
case. Scientometrics, 90(3), 877-890.
Ardanuy, J. (2013). Catalan research in library and information
science as viewed through the web of knowledge. Revista Espanola De
Documentacion Cientifica, 36(3).
Barik, N., & Jena, P. (2013). Authorship Studies of Trends in
Information Management, 2008-2012. International Journal of Library and
Information Studies, 3(4), 75-83.
Bharvi, D., Garg, K. C., & Bali, A. (2003). Scientometrics of
the international journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 56(1), 81-93.
Das, P. K. (2015). Authorship Pattern and Research Collaboration of
Journal of Informetrics. International Journal of Information
Dissemination and Technology, 5(1), 53-62.
Khan, D. (2016). Bibliometric analysis with special reference to
authorship patterns and collaborative research in the LIBRI:
International Journal of Libraries and Information Services. Brazilian
Journal of Information Science: Research Trends, 10(3).
Khurshid, Z. (2013). Contributions of Pakistani authors to foreign
Library and Information Science journals: An evaluative study. ASLIB
Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 65(4), 441-459.
Mittal, R., Sharma, A., & Singh, G. (2006). Periodical
literature on library and information science education: A bibliometric
study. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 53 December, 224-229.
Mukherjee, B. (2009). Scholarly research in LIS open access
electronic journals: A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 50(1),
167-194.
Pandita, R. (2013). Annals of library and information studies
(ALIS) journal: A bibliometric study (2002-2012). DESIDOC Journal of
Library and Information Technology, 33(6), 493-497.
Parameswaran, M. & Smitha, K.G. (2001). Bibliometric analysis
of LISA. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 45(4), 149-156.
Park, T. M. (2010) D-Lib Magazine: Its First 13 Years: bibliometric
study. D-Lib Magazine, 16 (1/2).
Pradhan, P., & Chandrakar, R. (2011) Indian LIS Literature in
International Journals with Specific Reference to SSCI Database: A
Bibliometric Study. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal).
Priya, A. S. & Khaparde, V. S. (2012) Authorship Pattern and
Degree of Collaboration in Library Management. International Journal of
Digital Library Services, 2 (1), 243-257.
Satpathy, S. K., Maharana, R. K., & Das, A. K. (2014). Open
source journals of library and information science: A bibliometric
study. Collection Building, 33(1), 15-20.
Singh, K. P., & Chander, H. (2014). Publication trends in
library and information science: A bibliometric analysis of library
management journal. Library Management, 35(3), 134-149.
Swain, C. (2015). A Bibliometric Profile of the Journal Library Hi
Tech from 2004 to 2013. KIIT Journal of Library and Information
Management, 2(2). 134-144.
Swain, C., Swain, D. K., & Rautaray, B. (2013). Bibliometric
analysis of Library Review from 2007 to 2011. Library Review, 62 (8/9),
602-618.
Swain, D. K. (2014). International information and library review:
A ten year bibliometric study. International Information and Library
Review, 46(3-4), 113-124.
Tiew, W. S., Abdullah, A., & Kaur, K. (2001). Malaysian journal
of library and information science 1996-2000: A bibliometric study.
Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 6(1), 43-56.
Thanuskodi, S. (2011). Library Herald journal: a bibliometric
study. Researchers World, 2(4), 68.
Thanuskodi, S. (2012) Bibliometric Analysis of DESIDOC Journal of
Library and Information Technology. DESIDOC Journal of Library and
Information Technology, 303-305.
Uzun, A. (2004). Assessing internationality of scholarly journals
through foreign authorship patterns: The case of major journals in
information science, and Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 61 (3),
457-465.
Vellaichamy, A., & Jeyshankar, R. (2015). Bibliometric analysis
of the Journal Webology from 2004-2013. J. of Adv. in Lib. and Inf. Sci,
4(1), 7-13.
Verma, A., Sonkar, S. K. & Gupta, V. (2015). A bibliometric
study of the Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal) for the period
2005-2014. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 1292.
Verma, N., Rajnish, T. and Priyanka, S. (2007). Analysis of
contributions in Annals of Library and Information Studies. Annals of
Library and Information Studies,
Yang, K., & Lee, J. (2012). Analysis of publication patterns in
Korean library and information science research. Scientometrics, 93(2),
233-251.
Zakaria, M. S. (2015). Scholarly productivity of Arab librarians in
library and information science journals from 1981 to 2010: An
analytical study. IFLA Journal, 41(1), 70-79.
Nilaranjan Barik
KIIT University, Bhubaneswar-751024, nilaranjan.barik@kiitac.in
Puspanjali Jena
Utkal University, Bhubaneswar-04, pjutkal1987@yahoo.co.in
Mr. Nilaranjan Barik
Asst. Librarian, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar-751024, India
Email--nilaranjan.barik@kiit.ac.in
Prof. (Dr.) Puspanjali Jena
Professor, Post Graduate Dept. of Library and Information Science
Utkal University, Bhubaneswar-751004, India
Email--pjutkal1987@yahoo.co.in
Caption: Figure 1: Year wise Distribution of Publications
Caption: Figure 3: Single Authorship Vrs Collaborative Authorship
Caption: Figure 4: CI, DC & CC of authors
Caption: Figure 5: Authors observed and authors expected
Table 1: Year wise Distribution of Publications
Sl No Publication CRL D-LIB IR ITL IS JM LIB
Year LA ERQ
i 2001 34 191 47 24 14 2 37
2 2002 40 178 28 25 19 67 42
3 2003 28 157 23 33 23 68 45
4 2004 18 115 51 21 8 75 44
5 2005 28 79 40 29 15 S3 31
6 2006 35 106 43 32 14 S3 41
7 2007 34 63 52 24 15 SI 28
3 2003 32 59 35 23 15 58 49
9 2009 42 74 41 31 6 62 12
10 2010 37 42 52 34 7 61 31
11 2011 39 44 56 32 4 52 16
12 2012 33 41 52 32 3 60 37
13 2013 40 43 52 26 7 53 3
14 2014 46 53 52 19 2 51 IS
15 2015 63 67 46 27 7 62 13
Total 554 1317 675 417 159 918 452
Sl No LISR LIB SL Total Percentage (%) Cumulative
RES MR
i 26 6 6 387 7.43 387
2 24 5 5 433 8.31 820
3 26 10 3 416 7.99 1236
4 29 11 2 374 7.18 1610
5 30 3 6 349 6.70 1959
6 33 7 6 405 7.78 2364
7 32 9 3 346 6.64 2710
3 34 12 5 327 6.28 3037
9 33 3 6 315 6.05 3352
10 36 7 7 314 6.03 3666
11 43 6 11 303 5.82 3969
12 40 1 14 313 6.11 4287
13 41 7 3 235 5.47 4572
14 28 h 7 292 5.61 4364
15 45 7 7 344 6.61 5208
Total 500 115 101 5208 100.00 --
Sl No Cumulative
Percentage (%)
i 7.43
2 15.75
3 23.73
4 30.91
5 37.62
6 45.39
7 52.04
3 58.31
9 64.36
10 70.39
11 76.21
12 82.32
13 87.79
14 93.39
15 100.00
Total --
Table 2: Distribution of Authorship Pattern
Sl No Source Journal Distribution of Authorship Pattern
(abbreviated)
One Two Three Four Five
1 CRL 240 201 68 30 4
2 D-LIB 773 230 152 68 37
3 IR 422 79 103 42 16
4 ITL 270 86 39 13 6
5 IS 72 57 16 11 3
6 JMLA 352 210 145 95 55
7 LIBER 347 77 16 6 5
8 LISR 192 216 56 24 7
9 LIBRES S3 29 13 3 2
10 SLMR 55 24 19 2 1
Total 2791 1209 627 294 136
Percentage (%) 53.59% 23.21% 12.04% 5.65% 2.61%
Sl No Source Journal Distribution of Authorship Pattern
(abbreviated)
Six Seven Eight Nine Ten >Ten
1 CRL 5 5 1 0 0 0
2 D-LIB 27 9 8 9 0 4
3 IR 7 2 1 1 2 0
4 ITL 1 2 0 0 0 0
5 IS 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 JMLA 26 13 10 5 3 4
7 LIBER 0 0 1 0 0 0
8 LISR 1 0 1 1 1 1
9 LIBRES 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 SLMR 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 67 31 22 16 6 9
Percentage (%) 1.29% 0.60% 0.42% 0.31% 0.12% 0.17%
Sl No Source Journal Total Total Mean of % of
(abbreviated) Papers Authorship Authorship Authorship
1 CRL 554 1059 1.91 10.51
2 D-LIB 1317 2579 1.96 25.59
3 IR 675 1230 1.82 12.21
4 ITL 417 661 1.59 6.56
5 IS 159 293 1.84 2.91
6 JMLA 918 2322 2.53 23.04
7 LIBER 452 606 1.34 6.01
8 LISR 500 967 1.93 9.60
9 LIBRES 115 187 1.63 1.86
10 SLMR 101 173 1.71 1.72
Total 5208 10077 1.93 100.00
Percentage (%) 100.00
Table 3: Single Authorship Vrs Collaborative Authorship
SL No Publication Total Single Authored
Year Publications
No. %
1 2001 387 249 64.34
2 2002 433 293 68.82
3 2003 416 237 56.97
4 2004 374 193 51.60
5 2005 349 213 61.03
6 2006 405 225 55.56
7 2007 346 188 54.34
8 2008 327 174 53.21
9 2000 315 136 43.17
10 2010 314 156 49.68
11 2011 303 147 48.51
12 2012 318 163 52.83
13 2013 285 114 40.00
14 2014 292 95 32.53
15 2015 344 193 57.56
Total 5208 2791 53.59
Percentage (%) 100.00% 53.59%
SL No Collaborative Total % of
Authored Authorship Authorship
No. %
1 138 35.66 616 6.11
2 135 31.18 710 7.05
3 179 43.03 773 7.67
4 131 48.40 703 6.98
5 136 33.97 650 6.45
6 180 44.44 794 7.88
7 158 45.66 683 6.78
8 153 46.79 609 6.04
9 179 56.83 645 6.40
10 158 50.32 605 6.00
11 156 51.49 622 6.17
12 150 47.17 640 6.35
13 171 60.00 650 6.45
14 197 67.47 708 7.03
15 146 42.44 669 6.64
2417 46.41 10077 100.00
Percentage (%) 46.41% 6.67
SL No Mean of Autorship
per Publication
1 1.59
2 1.64
3 1.86
4 1.88
5 1.36
6 1.96
7 1.97
8 1.86
9 2.05
10 1.93
11 2.05
12 2.01
13 2.28
14 2.42
15 1.94
1.93
Percentage (%) 1.95
Table 4: Collaborative Index (CI), Degree of Collaboration (DC), and
Collaborative Coefficient (CC)
SL No Publication Year wise Authorship Distribution
Year
1 2 3 4 5
1 2001 249 91 30 5 6
2 2002 298 56 47 19 6
3 2003 237 112 32 15 7
4 2004 193 105 42 16 9
5 2005 213 56 35 23 14
6 2006 225 87 47 20 9
7 2007 188 72 44 22 11
8 200S 174 S9 31 19 7
9 2000 136 91 49 25 7
10 2010 156 89 39 17 5
11 2011 147 73 44 18 9
12 2012 168 58 53 21 10
13 2013 114 92 30 19 14
14 2014 95 91 48 31 13
15 2015 198 47 56 24 9
Total 2791 1209 627 294 136
Percentage (%) 53.59% 23.21% 12.04% 5.65% 2.61%
SL No Year wise Authorship Distribution
6 7 8 9 10 More
than 10
1 3 0 2 0 0 1
2 3 1 1 1 0 1
3 5 3 2 0 1 2
4 4 2 1 1 1 0
5 2 3 2 1 0 0
6 6 4 2 2 2 1
7 4 2 0 1 0 2
8 3 0 1 3 0 0
9 5 1 1 0 0 0
10 5 0 0 2 0 1
11 6 4 2 0 0 0
12 0 3 3 2 0 0
13 6 3 5 1 1 0
14 9 3 0 0 1 1
15 6 2 0 2 0 0
67 31 22 16 6 9
Percentage (%) 1.29% 0.60% 0.42% 0.31% 0.12% 0.17%
SL No Total Total CI DC
Publications Authorship
1 387 616 1.05 0.60
2 433 710 1.05 0.58
3 416 773 0.78 0.69
4 374 703 0.73 0.73
5 349 650 0.80 0.67
6 405 794 0.71 0.72
7 346 683 0.70 0.72
8 327 609 0.75 0.71
9 315 645 0.62 0.79
10 314 605 0.70 0.74
11 303 622 0.64 0.76
12 318 640 0.67 0.74
13 235 650 0.53 0.82
14 292 708 0.48 0.87
15 344 669 0.73 0.70
5208 10077 0.71 0.72
Percentage (%) 100.00 Mean (0.73) Mean (0.72)
SL No CC
1 0.20
2 0.19
3 0.25
4 0.29
5 0.25
6 0.28
7 0.28
8 0.28
9 0.24
10 0.20
11 0.22
12 0.20
13 0.37
14 0.42
15 0.27
0.29
Percentage (%) Mean (0.29)
Table 5: Authors observed and authors expected
No. of No. of Percentage (%) No. of Percentage (%)
Contributions Authors Authors
"X" observed expected
"Y" (n=2)
1 2791 53.59 2791 53.59
2 1209 23.21 698 13.40
3 627 12.04 310 5.95
4 294 5.65 174 3.34
5 136 2.61 930 17.86
6 67 1.29 78 1.50
7 31 0.60 57 1.09
8 22 0.42 44 0.84
9 16 0.31 34 0.65
10 6 0.12 28 0.54
11 3 0.06 23 0.44
12 -- 0.00 19 0.36
13 2 0.04 17 0.33
14 1 0.02 14 0.27
15 -- 0.00 12 0.23
16 1 0.02 11 0.21
17 -- 0.00 10 0.19
18 1 0.02 9 0.17
19 -- 0.00 8 0.15
20 -- 0.00 7 0.13
21 -- 0.00 6 0.12
22 -- 0.00 6 0.12
23 -- 0.00 5 0.10
24 -- 0.00 5 0.10
25 -- 0.00 4 0.08
26 1 0.02 4 0.08
No. of No. of Percentage (%) No. of Percentage (%)
Contributions Authors Authors
"X" expected expected
(n=3) (n=1.19)
1 2791 53.59 2791 53.59
2 349 6.70 1223 23.48
3 103 1.98 755 14.50
4 44 0.84 536 10.29
5 22 0.42 411 7.89
6 13 0.25 331 6.36
7 8 0.15 275 5.28
8 5 0.10 235 4.51
9 4 0.08 204 3.92
10 3 0.06 180 3.46
11 2 0.04 161 3.09
12 2 0.04 145 2.78
13 1 0.02 132 2.53
14 1 0.02 121 2.32
15 0 0.00 111 2.13
16 0 0.00 103 1.98
17 0 0.00 95 1.82
18 0 0.00 90 1.73
19 0 0.00 84 1.61
20 0 0.00 79 1.52
21 0 0.00 74 1.42
22 0 0.00 71 1.36
23 0 0.00 67 1.29
24 0 0.00 64 1.23
25 0 0.00 61 1.17
26 0 0.00 58 1.11
Table 6: K-S Goodness-of-Fit for Author's Productivity
No. of Observed Authors
Contributions
"X" No. of Cumulative Relative
Authors "Y" Frequency Frequency {Sn(x)}
1 2791 2791 0.5359
2 1209 4000 0.7630
3 627 4627 0.SSS4
4 294 4921 0.9449
5 136 5057 0.9710
6 67 5124 0.9339
7 31 5155 0.9393
3 22 5177 0.9940
9 16 5193 0.9971
10 6 5199 0.9933
11 3 5202 0.9933
12 0 5202 0.9933
13 2 5204 0.9992
14 1 5205 0.9994
15 0 5205 0.9994
16 1 5206 0.9996
17 0 5206 0.9996
IS 1 5207 0.9993
19 0 5207 0.9993
20 0 5207 0.9993
21 0 5207 0.9993
22 0 5207 0.9993
23 0 5207 0.9993
24 0 5207 0.9993
25 0 5207 0.9993
26 1 5208 1.0000
5208
K-S statistics = 1.63/[square root of (n = 5208)]
No. of Expected Authors
Contributions
"X" No. of Cumulative Relative
Authors (n=1.19) Frequency Frequency {Fo(x)}
1 2791 2791 0.3300
2 1223 4014 0.4746
3 755 4769 0.5639
4 536 5305 0.6273
5 411 5716 0.6759
6 331 6047 0.7150
7 275 6322 0.7475
3 235 6557 0.7753
9 204 6761 0.7995
10 180 6941 0.8207
11 161 7102 0.8398
12 145 7247 0.8569
13 132 7379 0.8725
14 121 7500 0.8868
15 111 7611 0.9000
16 103 7714 0.9121
17 95 7809 0.9234
IS 90 7899 0.9340
19 34 7983 0.9440
20 79 8062 0.9533
21 74 8136 0.9620
22 71 8207 0.9704
23 67 8274 0.9784
24 64 8338 0.9859
25 61 8399 0.9931
26 53 8457 1.0000
8457
K-S statistics = 1.63/[square root of (n = 5208)]
No. of Deviation Dmax
Contributions D=Fo(x)-Sn(x) [Fo(x)-Sn(x)]
"X"
1 -0.2059 -0.0067
2 -0.2934
3 -0.3245
4 -0.3176
5 -0.2951
6 -0.2683
7 -0.2423
3 -0.2187
9 -0.1977
10 -0.1775
11 -0.1591
12 -0.1419
13 -0.1267
14 -0.1126
15 -0.0995
16 -0.0875
17 -0.0762
IS -0.0658
19 -0.0559
20 -0.0465
21 -0.0378
22 -0.0294
23 -0.0214
24 -0.0139
25 -0.0067
26 0.0000
K-S statistics = 1.63/ 0.0225
[square root (n = 5208)]
Table 7: Ranking of Prolific Authors
Sl No Author Country No. of Publications in
the Source Journals
CRL D-LIB IR ITL IS
1 Wilson, B. USA 74
2 Hernon, P. USA 7
3 Schwartz, C. USA
4 Wilson, T. USA 45
5 Lannom, L. USA 35
6 Plutchak, T.S. USA
7 Savolainen, R. UK 11
8 Wilson, T.D. USA 19
9 Giuse, N.B. USA
10 Nelson, M.L. USA 17
11 Morris, C.M. USA 16
12 Bakker, T. USA
13 Truitt, M. Canada 15
14 Walter, S. USA 15
15 Starr, S. USA
16 Brooks, T.A. USA 13
17 Julien, H. Canada 3
18 Van De Sompel, H. USA 13
19 Ayris, P. Germany
20 Williamson, K. Australia 4
21 Angevaare, I. Netherlands
22 Dekeyser, R. USA
23 Dilevko, J. Canada 3
24 Eldredge, J.D. USA
25 Epstein, B.A. USA
26 Lagoze, C. USA 11
27 Tennant, M.R. USA
28 Thelwall, M. UK 4
29 Branin, J. USA 10
30 Castelli, D. Italy 8
31 Gill, T.G. USA 10
32 Jerome, R.N. USA
33 Rauber, A. Austria 10
34 Shipman, J.P. USA
35 Alpi, K.M. USA
36 Gross, M. USA 2
37 Jaeger, P.T. USA 4
38 King, D.W. USA 9
39 Manghi, P. Italy 9
40 Stvilia, B. USA
41 Webb, J. USA 9
42 Aharony, N. Israel 3
43 Allard, S. USA 3 2
44 Ankem, K. USA 2
45 Bertot, J.C. USA 5
46 Byrd, G.D. USA
47 De Groote, S.L. USA
48 Fox, E.A. USA 8
49 Gerrity, B. Australia 8
50 Knoth, P. UK 8
51 Luo, L. USA
52 McClure, C.R. USA 3
53 Murphy, S.A. USA 2
54 Shenton, H. UK
55 Shultz, M. USA
56 Anderson, T.D. Australia 7
57 Bronstein, J. Israel 5
58 Dutcher, G.A. USA
59 Given, L.M. Canada
60 Harnad, S. UK 7
61 Koonce, T.Y. USA
62 Kwon, N. USA 2 2
63 Lipscomb, C.E. USA
64 Maggio, L.A. USA
65 McClure, USA
L.W.
66 McGowan, J.J. USA
67 Sathe, N.A. USA
68 Shedlock, J. USA
69 Small, R.V. USA
70 Sumner, T. USA 7
71 Tanner, S. UK 7
72 Tannery, N.H. USA
73 Tenopir, C. USA 4
74 Vaughan, J. USA 7
75 Winston, M.D. USA 3
76 Wood, F.B. USA
77 Blecic, D.D. USA 4
78 Candela, L. Italy 6
79 Choudhury, G.S. USA 6
80 Cogdill, K.W. USA
81 Connaway, L.S. USA 3
82 Crane, G. USA 6
83 Cyzyk, M. USA 6
84 Dehmlow, M. USA 6
85 DiLauro, T. USA 6
86 Dorsch, J.L. USA
87 Fisher, K.E. USA 4
88 Fulda, P.O. USA
89 Hickey, T.B. USA 6
90 Huber, J.T. USA
91 Jarvelin, K. Finland 6
92 Kim, S. South Korea 3
93 Kronenfeld, M.R. USA
94 Markey, K. USA 2 4
95 Marmion, D. USA 6
96 Martin, E.R. USA
97 Miller, P. UK 6
98 Montiel-Overall, P. USA
99 Oh, S. USA 2
100 Olney, C.A. USA
101 Pagano, P. Italy 6
102 Rethlefsen, M.L. USA
103 Scherrer, C.S. USA
104 te Boekhorst, P. USA
105 Van Veen, T. Netherlands 6
106 Warner, S. USA 6
107 Weller, A.C. USA 2
108 Wessel, C.B. USA
2991 Authors with range of 5-1 publications each
Sl No No. of Publications in
the Source Journals
JMLA LIBER LISR LIBRE SLMR
1
2 55
3 55
4
5
6 21
7 8
8
9 18
10
11
12 15
13
14
15 14
16
17 10
18
19 12
20 6 2
21 11
22 11
23 8
24 11
25 11
26
27 11
28 6 1
29
30 2
31
32 10
33
34 10
35 9
36 6 1
37 5
38
39
40 9
41
42 5
43 3
44 2 3 1
45 1 2
46 8
47 8
48
49
50
51 7 1
52 4 1
53 6
54 8
55 8
56
57 2
58 7
59 6 1
60
61 7
62 3
63 7
64 7
65 7
66 7
67 7
68 7
69 7
70
71
72 7
73 3
74
75 4
76 7
77 2
78
79
80 6
81 3
82
83
84
85
86 6
87 2
88 6
89
90 6
91
92 3
93 6
94
95
96 6
97
98 4 2
99 4
100 6
101
102 6
103 6
104 6
105
106
107 4
108 6
2991 Authors with range of 5-1 publications each
Sl No Total Percentage Rank
(n=5208) (%)
1 74 1.42% 1
2 62 1.19% 2
3 55 1.06% 3
4 45 0.86% 4
5 35 0.67% 5
6 21 0.40% 6
7 19 0.36% 7
8 19 0.36% 7
9 18 0.35% 8
10 17 0.33% 9
11 16 0.31% 10
12 15 0.29% 11
13 15 0.29% 11
14 15 0.29% 11
15 14 0.27% 12
16 13 0.25% 13
17 13 0.25% 13
18 13 0.25% 13
19 12 0.23% 14
20 12 0.23% 14
21 11 0.21% 15
22 11 0.21% 15
23 11 0.21% 15
24 11 0.21% 15
25 11 0.21% 15
26 11 0.21% 15
27 11 0.21% 15
28 11 0.21% 15
29 10 0.19% 16
30 10 0.19% 16
31 10 0.19% 16
32 10 0.19% 16
33 10 0.19% 16
34 10 0.19% 16
35 9 0.17% 17
36 9 0.17% 17
37 9 0.17% 17
38 9 0.17% 17
39 9 0.17% 17
40 9 0.17% 17
41 9 0.17% 17
42 8 0.15% 18
43 8 0.15% 18
44 8 0.15% 18
45 8 0.15% 18
46 8 0.15% 18
47 8 0.15% 18
48 8 0.15% 18
49 8 0.15% 18
50 8 0.15% 18
51 8 0.15% 18
52 8 0.15% 18
53 8 0.15% 18
54 8 0.15% 18
55 8 0.15% 18
56 7 0.13% 19
57 7 0.13% 19
58 7 0.13% 19
59 7 0.13% 19
60 7 0.13% 19
61 7 0.13% 19
62 7 0.13% 19
63 7 0.13% 19
64 7 0.13% 19
65 7 0.13% 19
66 7 0.13% 19
67 7 0.13% 19
68 7 0.13% 19
69 7 0.13% 19
70 7 0.13% 19
71 7 0.13% 19
72 7 0.13% 19
73 7 0.13% 19
74 7 0.13% 19
75 7 0.13% 19
76 7 0.13% 19
77 6 0.12% 20
78 6 0.12% 20
79 6 0.12% 20
80 6 0.12% 20
81 6 0.12% 20
82 6 0.12% 20
83 6 0.12% 20
84 6 0.12% 20
85 6 0.12% 20
86 6 0.12% 20
87 6 0.12% 20
88 6 0.12% 20
89 6 0.12% 20
90 6 0.12% 20
91 6 0.12% 20
92 6 0.12% 20
93 6 0.12% 20
94 6 0.12% 20
95 6 0.12% 20
96 6 0.12% 20
97 6 0.12% 20
98 6 0.12% 20
99 6 0.12% 20
100 6 0.12% 20
101 6 0.12% 20
102 6 0.12% 20
103 6 0.12% 20
104 6 0.12% 20
105 6 0.12% 20
106 6 0.12% 20
107 6 0.12% 20
108 6 0.12% 20
2991 Authors with range of 4043 77.63% --
5-1 publications each
Table 8: Most cited Authors
Sl No. Most Cited Authorship Total Percentage
Citations (%)
1 Wilson T.D. 407 0.94
2 Hammond T., Hannay T., Lund B., 294 0.68
Scott J.
3 Levy Y., Ellis T.J. 277 0.64
4 Saha S., Saint S., Christakis 269 0.62
D.A.
5 Borlund P. 225 0.52
6 Savolainen R. 219 0.5
7 Harnad S., Brody T. 216 0.5
8 Case D.O., Andrews J.E., Johnson 198 0.46
J.D., Allard S.L.
9 Guy M., Tonkin E. 188 0.43
10 Glanville J.M., Lefebvre C., 177 0.41
Miles J.N.V., Camosso-Stefinovic
J.
11 Heinstrom J. 173 0.4
12 Wong S.S.-L., Wilczynski N.L., 168 0.39
Haynes R.B.
13 Knight S.-A., Burn J. 162 0.37
14 Duval E., Hodgins W., Sutton S., 160 0.37
Weibel S.L.
15 Hildreth P.M., Kimble C. 157 0.36
16 Gross M., Latham D. 153 0.35
17 Coumou H.C.H., Meijman F.J. 150 0.35
18 Foster N.F., Gibbons S. 147 0.34
19 Bates M.J. 135 0.31
20 Whitmire E. 134 0.31
21 Jansen B.J. 131 0.3
22 Davis P.M. 129 0.3
23 Charnigo L., Barnett-Ellis P. 124 0.29
24 Smith M., Bass M., McClellan G., 124 0.29
Tansley R., Barton M.,
Branschofsky M., Stuve D.,
Walker J.H.
25 Ankem K. 123 0.28
26 Choo C.W. 120 0.28
27 Bjork B.-C. 114 0.26
28 Connaway L.S., Dickey T.J., 114 0.26
Radford M.L.
29 Lewis D.W. 114 0.26
30 Johnson C.A. 113 0.26
31 Shill H.B., Tonner S. 112 0.26
32 Iannella R. 107 0.25
33 Lynch C.A., Lippincott J.K. 107 0.25
34 Hartley J. 106 0.24
35 Aharony N. 104 0.24
36 Bauer K., Bakkalbasi N. 102 0.23
37 Bouthillier F., Shearer K. 102 0.23
38 Van De Sompel H., Beit-Arie O. 101 0.23
39 Davis P.M., Connolly M.J.L. 100 0.23
40 Virkus S. 100 0.23
41 Frazier K. 99 0.23
42 Spink A., Cole C. 99 0.23
43 Dee C., Stanley E.E. 98 0.23
44 Grimes D.J., Boening C.H. 96 0.22
45 Jaeger P.T., Thompson K.M. 96 0.22
46 Cullen R.J. 95 0.22
47 Maughan P.D. 95 0.22
48 Plutchak T.S. 95 0.22
49 Hall H., Davison B. 94 0.22
50 Lynch B.P., Smith K.R. 94 0.22
51 Cogdill K.W. 91 0.21
52 Antelman K., Lynema E., Pace A.K. 90 0.21
53 Thelwall M. 89 0.2
54 Hsieh-Yee I. 88 0.2
55 Majid S., Foo S., Luyt B., Zhang 88 0.2
X., Theng Y.-L., Chang Y.-K.,
Mokhtar I.A.
56 Jarvelin K., Ingwersen P. 87 0.2
57 Tenopir C., King D.W., Boyce P., 84 0.19
Grayson M., Zhang Y., Ebuen M.
58 McGowan J., Sampson M. 83 0.19
59 Shultz M. 83 0.19
60 Bjork B.-C., Roos A., Lauri, M. 82 0.19
61 George C., Bright A., Hurlbert 82 0.19
T., Linke E.C., St. Clair G.,
Stein J.
62 Hernon P., Powell R.R., Young 82 0.19
A.P.
63 Kuh G.D., Gonyea R.M. 82 0.19
64 Evans D. 81 0.19
65 Julien H., Barker S. 81 0.19
66 Lund B., Hammond T., Flack M., 81 0.19
Hannay T.
67 Tenopir C., King D.W., Bush A. 81 0.19
68 Holley R. 79 0.18
69 Shank J.D., Dewald N.H. 79 0.18
70 Jarvelin K., Wilson T.D. 76 0.18
71 Kwon N. 76 0.18
72 Sollaci L.B., Pereira M.G. 75 0.17
73 Van De Sompel H., Nelson M.L., 75 0.17
Lagoze C., Warner S.
74 Andrews J.E., Pearce K.A., Ireson 74 0.17
C., Love M.M.
75 Ponzi L.J., Koenig M. 74 0.17
76 Burkell J. 73 0.17
77 Agosto D.E., Hughes-Hassell S. 72 0.17
78 Kim K.-S. 72 0.17
79 Mackey T.P., Jacobson T.E. 72 0.17
80 Agosto D.E. 71 0.16
81 Chua A.Y.K., Goh D.H. 71 0.16
82 De Groote S.L., Dorsch J.L. 71 0.16
83 Dervin B. 71 0.16
84 Johnson R.K. 71 0.16
85 Booth A. 70 0.16
86 Herring S.D. 70 0.16
87 Marchionini G., Geisler G. 70 0.16
88 Tabatabai D., Shore B.M. 70 0.16
89 Van De Sompel H., Payette S., 70 0.16
Erickson J., Lagoze C., Warner S.
90 Foley M. 69 0.16
91 McGillis L., Toms E.G. 68 0.16
92 Hayslett M.M., Wildemuth B.M. 66 0.15
93 Hendrix D., Chiarella D., Hasman 66 0.15
L., Murphy S., Zafron M.L.
94 Nesset V., Large A. 66 0.15
95 Shah C., Oh S., Oh J.S. 66 0.15
96 Xie H. 65 0.15
97 Nisonger T.E., Davis C.H. 65 0.15
98 Urquhart C., Light A., Thomas R., 65 0.15
Barker A., Yeoman A., Cooper J.,
Armstrong C., Fenton R., Lonsdale
R., Spink S.
99 Dorsch J.L., Aiyer M.K., Meyer 64 0.15
L.E.
100 Fisher K.E., Marcoux E., Miller 64 0.15
L.S., Sanchez A., Cunningham E.R.
101-3188 Other 3088 authorship 32446 74.72
TOTAL 43424 100
Sl No. Cumulative Percentage Rank
Citations (%)
1 407 0.94 1
2 701 1.61 2
3 978 2.25 3
4 1247 2.87 4
5 1472 3.39 5
6 1691 3.89 6
7 1907 4.39 7
8 2105 4.85 8
9 2293 5.28 9
10 2470 5.69 10
11 2643 6.09 11
12 2811 6.47 12
13 2973 6.85 13
14 3133 7.21 14
15 3290 7.58 15
16 3443 7.93 16
17 3593 8.27 17
18 3740 8.61 18
19 3875 8.92 19
20 4009 9.23 20
21 4140 9.53 21
22 4269 9.83 22
23 4393 10.12 22
24 4517 10.40 22
25 4640 10.69 23
26 4760 10.96 24
27 4874 11.22 25
28 4988 11.49 25
29 5102 11.75 25
30 5215 12.01 26
31 5327 12.27 27
32 5434 12.51 28
33 5541 12.76 28
34 5647 13.00 29
35 5751 13.24 30
36 5853 13.48 31
37 5955 13.71 31
38 6056 13.95 32
39 6156 14.18 33
40 6256 14.41 33
41 6355 14.63 33
42 6454 14.86 33
43 6552 15.09 34
44 6648 15.31 35
45 6744 15.53 35
46 6839 15.75 35
47 6934 15.97 35
48 7029 16.19 35
49 7123 16.40 35
50 7217 16.62 35
51 7308 16.83 36
52 7398 17.04 37
53 7487 17.24 38
54 7575 17.44 39
55 7663 17.65 39
56 7750 17.85 40
57 7834 18.04 41
58 7917 18.23 42
59 8000 18.42 42
60 8082 18.61 43
61 8164 18.80 43
62 8246 18.99 43
63 8328 19.18 43
64 8409 19.36 43
65 8490 19.55 43
66 8571 19.74 43
67 8652 19.92 43
68 8731 20.11 44
69 8810 20.29 44
70 8886 20.46 45
71 8962 20.64 45
72 9037 20.81 46
73 9112 20.98 46
74 9186 21.15 47
75 9260 21.32 47
76 9333 21.49 48
77 9405 21.66 49
78 9477 21.82 49
79 9549 21.99 49
80 9620 22.15 50
81 9691 22.32 50
82 9762 22.48 50
83 9833 22.64 50
84 9904 22.81 50
85 9974 22.97 51
86 10044 23.13 51
87 10114 23.29 51
88 10184 23.45 51
89 10254 23.61 51
90 10323 23.77 52
91 10391 23.93 53
92 10457 24.08 54
93 10523 24.23 54
94 10589 24.39 54
95 10655 24.54 54
96 10720 24.69 55
97 10785 24.84 55
98 10850 24.99 55
99 10914 25.13 56
100 10978 25.28 56
101-3188 43424 100.00 --
TOTAL -- -- --
Table 9: Country wise Authorship Distribution
Sl No Country No. of Publications in
the Source Journals
CRL D-LIB IR ITL IS
1 United States of America (USA) 441 621 163 320 71
2 United Kingdom (UK) 191 80 1 9
3 Canada 25 27 44 28 4
4 Australia 4 38 50 5 20
5 Germany 69 2 2 5
6 Spain 3 13 59 10
7 Netherlands 42 8 5
8 Finland 53 1
9 Sweden 1 4 41 1 6
10 Italy 40 2 2 2
11 New Zealand 20 11 1 5
12 China 5 13 11 1
13 France 13 6 1
14 South Africa 1 4 11 2 8
15 Singapore 1 5 11
16 Greece 20 3 2
17 Austria 24 2 1
18 Denmark 6 14 1
19 Norway 5 4 7
20 South Korea 3 10 1
21 Israel 3 10 5
22 Belgium 16 2
23 Taiwan 1 11 1
24 India 6 1 2 1
25 Japan 7 5
26 Ireland 3 3 3 4
27 Portugal 6 7
28 Hong Kong 3 3 2
29 Brazil 1 2 8
30 Iran 5
31 Poland 5 3 1
32 Switzerland 5 1 2
33 Malaysia 4
34 Czech Republic 4 1
35 Mexico 5 1 1
36 Turkey 3
37 Slovenia 5 1
38 Hungary 2 1 1
39 Iceland 6
40 Lithuania 6 1
41 Nigeria 1
42 Chile 6
43 Finland 6
44 Uganda 3
45 Pakistan
46 Kuwait 2
47 Slovakia 1 3
48 United Arab Emirates 1 1
49 Argentina 1 2
50 Colombia 1
51 Croatia 1 1
52 Cuba 2
53 Estonia 2
54 Russian Federation 1 2
55 Serbia 2 1
56 Thailand
57 Botswana
58 Ecuador
59 Latvia 2
60 Macedonia 1 1
61 Netherlands Antilles
62 Qatar 1
63 Trinidad and Tobago
64 Zambia
65 Aruba
66 Bahrain 1
67 Bangladesh
68 Bulgaria 1
69 Costa Rica
70 Cyprus
71 Fiji
72 Ghana 1
73 Honduras
74 Iraq 1
75 Kazakhstan 1
76 Kenya
77 Panama
78 Peru 1
79 Saudi Arabia 1
80 Swaziland 1
81 Togo 1
82 Uruguay 1
83 Venezuela 1
84 Unidentified 70 224 58 33 3
Sl No No. of Publications in Total Percentage
the Source Journals (n=5208) (%)
JMLA LIBERQ LISR LIBRE SLMR
1 755 15 300 45 91 2822 54.19
2 23 37 27 4 372 7.14
3 49 3 52 10 242 4.65
4 11 1 29 13 5 176 3.38
5 24 1 103 1.98
6 6 2 6 99 1.90
7 7 25 1 88 1.69
8 6 18 78 1.50
9 1 1 1 56 1.08
10 1 5 2 1 55 1.06
11 3 1 1 42 0.81
12 2 9 41 0.79
13 8 10 1 39 0.75
14 4 7 37 0.71
15 1 8 9 35 0.67
16 1 7 1 34 0.65
17 2 2 31 0.60
18 8 1 1 31 0.60
19 6 9 31 0.60
20 15 1 30 0.58
21 1 1 9 29 0.56
22 1 6 2 1 28 0.54
23 1 5 1 20 0.38
24 2 4 2 18 0.35
25 3 2 1 18 0.35
26 1 2 16 0.31
27 3 16 0.31
28 2 4 1 15 0.29
29 2 1 14 0.27
30 2 4 1 12 0.23
31 1 1 11 0.21
32 1 1 1 11 0.21
33 3 3 10 0.19
34 3 1 9 0.17
35 1 1 9 0.17
36 4 2 9 0.17
37 1 1 8 0.15
38 1 1 1 7 0.13
39 1 7 0.13
40 7 0.13
41 1 1 4 7 0.13
42 6 0.12
43 6 0.12
44 1 2 6 0.12
45 2 1 2 5 0.10
46 1 1 4 0.08
47 4 0.08
48 1 1 4 0.08
49 3 0.06
50 1 1 3 0.06
51 1 3 0.06
52 1 3 0.06
53 1 3 0.06
54 3 0.06
55 3 0.06
56 3 3 0.06
57 1 1 2 0.04
58 2 2 0.04
59 2 0.04
60 2 0.04
61 1 1 2 0.04
62 1 2 0.04
63 1 1 2 0.04
64 2 2 0.04
65 1 1 0.02
66 1 0.02
67 1 1 0.02
68 1 0.02
69 1 1 0.02
70 1 1 0.02
71 1 1 0.02
72 1 0.02
73 1 1 0.02
74 1 0.02
75 1 0.02
76 1 1 0.02
77 1 1 0.02
78 1 0.02
79 1 0.02
80 1 0.02
81 1 0.02
82 1 0.02
83 1 0.02
84 53 287 7 5 3 743 14.27
Sl No Rank
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 15
15 16
16 17
17 18
18 18
19 18
20 19
21 20
22 21
23 22
24 23
25 23
26 24
27 24
28 25
29 26
30 27
31 28
32 28
33 29
34 30
35 30
36 30
37 31
38 32
39 32
40 32
41 32
42 33
43 33
44 33
45 34
46 35
47 35
48 35
49 36
50 36
51 36
52 36
53 36
54 36
55 36
56 36
57 37
58 37
59 37
60 37
61 37
62 37
63 37
64 37
65 38
66 38
67 38
68 38
69 38
70 38
71 38
72 38
73 38
74 38
75 38
76 38
77 38
78 38
79 38
80 38
81 38
82 38
83 38
84 --
Figure 2: Authorship Pattern
Authorship Pattern
One 53.59%
Two 23.21%
Three 12.04%
Four 5.65%
Five 2.61%
Six 1.29%
Seven 0.60%
Eight 0.42%
Nine 0.31%
Ten 0.12%
> Ten 0.17%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright
restrictions.
COPYRIGHT 2018 University of Idaho Library
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.