Practitioners and academics as authors and readers: the case of LIS journals

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals.Design/methodology/approachThe research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey.FindingsIt is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half‐life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal.Research limitations/implicationsThis research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply.Originality/valueThe value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

Almost Halfway There: An Analysis of the Open Access Behaviors of Academic Librarians

“…Schlögl and Stock found a low degree of information exchange between academic and practitioner journals in library science, 18 which could explain differences in rates of open access adoption between practitioners (academic librarians) and researchers (teaching faculty).…”

The academic–practitioner gap in Spanish library and information science: An analysis of authorship and collaboration in two leading national publications

“…Post-print version (accepted 2016-Nov-10th) [21] uncertain environment. Spaces for development like the evidence-based librarianship advocated by Schlögl and Stock (2008) should therefore be explored.…”

“…Finally, we refer to a significant volume of works that conduct in-depth analysis of authorship in LIS publications (Finlay et al 2013;Joswick, 1999;Schlögl and Stock, 2008;Walters and Wilder, 2016). The degree of collaboration revealed by co-authored papers and the coexistence of works from both communities in certain publications are good general indicators of the healthy relationship between academia and the professional world.…”

Putting Research into Practice: An Exploration of Sheffield iSchool Approaches to Connecting Research with Practice

“…Although a number of studies have explored both researcher and practitioner perspectives on specific aspects of this gap, such as interlibrary loan trends or the use of, or preference for, specific types of journals (Klobas & Clyde, 2010;Montanelli & Mak, 1988;Schlögl & Stock, 2008), other studies have focused in much more depth on practitioner perspectives alone (Ali, 1985;Clapton, 2010;Luo, 2011;Powell, Baker, & Mika, 2002;Turner, 2002). There appear to be relatively few studies exploring LIS researcher perceptions of the research-practice divide.…”