Asian and Pacific Region Authorship Characteristics in Leading Library and Information Science Journals

Park, Taemin Kim

doi:10.1080/00987913.2008.10765188

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The United Kingdom, Spain, China, Canada, and Taiwan are also major contributors. These findings are consistent with Park's () observation that Australia's contributions have been declining relative to those of China, Taiwan, and South Korea, and with the more general assertion that many Asian countries are gaining prominence as producers of LIS research (Davarpanah & Aslekia, ).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012

Walters

Wilder

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the contributions of particular disciplines, countries, and academic departments to the literature of library and information science (LIS) using data for the articles published in 31 journals from 2007 to 2012. In particular, we examine the contributions of authors outside the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada; faculty in departments other than LIS; and practicing librarians. Worldwide, faculty in LIS departments account for 31% of the journal literature; librarians, 23%; computer science faculty, 10%; and management faculty, 10%. The top contributing nations are the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, China, Canada, and Taiwan. Within the United States and the United Kingdom, the current productivity of LIS departments is correlated with past productivity and with other measures of reputation and performance. More generally, the distribution of contributions is highly skewed. In the United States, five departments account for 27% of the articles contributed by LIS faculty; in the United Kingdom, four departments account for nearly twothirds of the articles. This skewed distribution reinforces the possibility that high-status departments may gain a permanent advantage in the competition for students, faculty, journal space, and research funding. At the same time, concentrations of research-active faculty in particular departments may generate beneficial spillover effects.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…In contrast, only four African or South American countries contributed more than a dozen articles. Comparisons with previous studies (Davarpanah & Aslekia, ; Park, ) suggest that several Asian countries now generate more LIS research than they have in the past.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012

Walters

Wilder

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The position of the USA and the UK was reported quite stable in the context of the country collaboration. Park (2008) conducted a bibliometric study of the Top 20 LIS journals to analyze the authorship patterns of the Asian and Pacific regions. The findings of his study revealed that 1,317 articles published during the period 1967-2005.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly research in Library and Information Science: an analysis based on ISI Web of Science

Ahmad

Sheikh

Rafi

2019

PMM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a quantitative analysis of the Library and Information Science (LIS) scholarly literature published worldwide. Design/methodology/approach The ISI Web of Science database was used as a source for extracting the data of published documents during the period 2003–2017. The analysis of the published literature was based on the following indicators: research productivity of each county, annual publications, annual citations, highly cited articles, highly cited LIS journals, most productive institutions in the field of LIS and most prolific authors. The types of documents included in this study were research articles, conference proceeding papers, book reviews and editorials. Findings The findings revealed that the USA had the highest overall output of LIS scholarly publications. The year 2016 was identified as the most productive year for the number of publications, whereas 2017 was identified as the most productive year for the number of citations. “Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar” was the most highly cited article. The Journal of Medical Library Association was the most highly cited journal in LIS. Indiana University from the USA was the most productive LIS research institution. Mike Thelwall, from the UK, is identified as the most prolific author in LIS. Originality/value The study will be of interest for those researchers, who intend to conduct bibliometric research studies in LIS.

show abstract

“…In the social sciences, LIS professionals have conducted bibliometric studies in order to study the authorship patterns from top library and information science journals from the Asia and Pacific region (Park, 2006), (Park, 2008); publication behaviour of authors (Michels and Schmoch, 2014); author co-citation analysis to find out a particular network of the scientific community (Oliveira and Grácio, 2014) and bibliometric analysis of a specific journal (Swain et al, 2013) (Sahu and Swain, 2014), etc.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Text mining

Nagarkar

Kumbhar

2015

Library Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to analyse text mining (TM) literature indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) under the “Information Science Library Science” subcategory. More specifically, it analyses the chronological growth of TM literature, and the major countries, institutions, departments and individuals contributing to TM literature. Collaboration in TM research is also analysed. Design/methodology/approach – Bibliographic and citation data required for this research were retrieved from the WoS database. TM being a multidisciplinary field, the search was restricted to “Information Science Library Science” subcategory in the WoS. A comprehensive query statement covering all synonyms of “text mining” was prepared using the Boolean operator “OR”. Microsoft Excel and HistCite software were used for data analysis. Pajek and VoSviewer were used for data visualization. Findings – It was found that USA is the major producer of TM research literature, and the highest number of papers were published in the Journal of The American Medical Informatics. Columbia University ranked first both in number of articles and citations received in the top ten institutes publishing TM literature. It was also observed that six of the top ten subdivisions of institutions are either from medicine or medical informatics or biomedical information. H.C. Chen and C. Friedman were seen to be the most prolific authors. Research limitations/implications – The paper analyses articles on TM published during 1999-2013 in WoS under the subcategory Information Science Library Science’. Originality/value – The paper is based on empirical data exclusively gathered for this research.

show abstract

Asian and Pacific Region Authorship Characteristics in Leading Library and Information Science Journals

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012

Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012

Scholarly research in Library and Information Science: an analysis based on ISI Web of Science

Text mining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About