Collaboration clusters, interdisciplinarity, scope and subject classification of library and information science research from Africa: An analysis of Web of Science publications from 1996 to 2015

Abstract

This study investigated the trends in the scope and subject classifications of library and information science research from authors that are affiliated with institutions in Africa. Library and information science journal articles and conference proceedings from the 54 African countries that were published between 2006 and 2015 and indexed in the Web of Science were retrieved for the study. After the removal of non-relevant articles and articles that were not available online, the library and information science publications were classified based on subject and scope. Results from the analysis of author keywords, country of affiliation, subject and scope classification were also visualized in network maps and bar charts. Frequency analysis shows that though computer science had the most profound influence on Africa’s library and information science research, its influence came to prominence in 2004. Furthermore, North African countries exhibited features that are different from the rest of Africa; they contributed most on core computer classifications while other African countries focused more on the social science-related aspects of library and information science. Unlike other regions in Africa, the North African countries also formed a dense collaboration cluster with strong interests in subjects that are conceptual and global in scope. The collaboration clustering analysis revealed an influence of some colonial languages of as a basis for forging strong collaboration between African and non-African countries. On the other hand, African countries tend to collaborate more with countries in their regions. Lastly, human computer interaction and library and information science history subject classifications were almost nonexistent. It is recommended that further studies should investigate why certain subject classifications are not well represented.

Regional and international research collaboration and citation impact in selected sub-Saharan African countries in the period 2000 to 2019

“…The indicator is widely used throughout the world. In Africa, there have been few bibliometric or scientometric studies on research collaboration specific to such countries as Nigeria (Fari and Ocholla, 2015), Ghana (Owusu-Nimo and Boshoff, 2017) and South Africa (Sooryamoorthy, 2013;Sooryamoorthy, 2015;Sooryamoorthy, 2017) and/or in specific disciplines or research areas such as HIV/AIDS (Onyancha, 2009), ecology (Yevide et al, 2016), engineering (Sooryamoorthy, 2011), cardiovascular research (Ettarh, 2016, natural and applied sciences (Jacobs, 2008) and library and information science (Asubiaro and Badmus, 2020;Maluleka and Onyancha, 2016;Onyancha, 2018). Bibliometric studies on research collaboration covering Africa or large geopolitical regions on the continent are rare.…”

Sub-Saharan African Countries’ COVID-19 Research: An analysis of the External and Internal Contributions, Collaboration Patterns and Funding Sources

“…For instance, studies have revealed that researchers in Africa mostly participate in international collaboration as fringe participants, not as the first authors or principal investigators (Hedt-Gauthier et al, 2019;Owusu-Nimo & Boshoff, 2017). Another study revealed that Sub-Saharan African countries collaborated more with the countries that colonized them (T. V. Asubiaro & Badmus, 2020;Boshoff, 2009). Countries that were colonized by England were more likely to collaborate with England and English-speaking countries and same for countries that were colonized by Portugal and France.…”

“…For instance, while Zimbabwe, and Kenya are also English-speaking countries, Cameroun, Congo, and Senegal are not. Earlier studies have identified language as a determinant for collaboration between African countries(Asubiaro & Badmus, 2020). Similarly, while Zimbabwe is close to South Africa geographically, Cameroun and Sudan are not.…”

United Kingdom’s contribution to European research output in biomedical sciences: 2008–2017

“…We extracted data from the Web of Science the same way as described by Asubiaro and Badmus 9 for African countries for a single research area; however, our work encompassed not one research area but several, namely preclinical, clinical, and health sciences within the larger domain of biomedical sciences, and we looked for the total number of publications and the world's top 1% most cited publications each year for the decade 2008-2017.…”