Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2016.4.1.1

Research Publishing by Library and Information Science Scholars in Pakistan: A Bibliometric Analysis  

Ali, Muhammad Yousuf (Sindh Madressatul Islam University)
Richardson, Joanna (Information Services, Griffith University)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.4, no.1, 2016 , pp. 6-20 More about this Journal
Abstract
Scholarly communication plays a significant role in the development and dissemination of research outputs in library and information science (LIS). This study presents findings from a survey which examines the key attributes that characterize the publishing by Pakistani LIS scholars, i.e. academics and professionals, in national journals. A pilot-tested, electronic questionnaire was used to collect the data from the target population. 104 respondents (or 69.3% of target) provided feedback on areas such as number of articles published, number of citations, and the nature of any collaboration with other authors. The findings of this survey revealed that, among the various designated regions of Pakistan, the Punjab region was the most highly represented. In articles published in national journals, there was a clear preference among all respondents to collaborate with at least one other author. The citation metrics for LIS articles in national journals were relatively low (30.22%), which aligns with Scimago’s Journal and Country Rankings. The uptake of social scholarly networks mirrors international trends. Respondents were asked to score factors which could impact negatively on their ability to undertake research and/or publish the results. The study recommends that concerned stakeholders work together, as appropriate, to address concerns. In addition, it recommends that further research be undertaken to define patterns of Pakistani co-authorship in the social sciences.
Keywords
Scholarly Communication; LIS Researcher; Scholarly Publishing; Citation Analysis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Brody, T. (2006). Evaluating research impact through open access to scholarly communication (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton).
2 Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.   DOI
3 Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4 Borgman, C.L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology, vol. 36 (pp. 3-72). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
5 Deng, S., & Dotson, L. (2015). Redefining scholarly services in a research lifecycle. In B. L. Eden (Ed.), Creating research infrastructures in the 21st-century academic library: conceiving, funding, and building new facilities and staff (pp. 77-92). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
6 Disabato, N. (2012). Publication standards part 1: The fragmented present. A List Apart, no. 352. Retrieved from http://alistapart.com/article/publication-standards-part-1-the-fragmented-present.
7 Dowling, G. R. (2014). Playing the citations game: From publish or perish to be cited or sidelined. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 22(4), 280-287.   DOI
8 Haider, S. J., & Mahmood, K. (2006). Post-master LIS education at Punjab University (Lahore). Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal, 37(3), 3-8.
9 Haider, S. J., & Mahmood, K. (2007). MPhil and PhD library and information science research in Pakistan: An evaluation. Library Review, 56(5), 407-417.   DOI
10 Aksnes, D. W., Schneider, J. W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 36-43.   DOI
11 Agyeman, E.A., & Bilson, A. (2015). Research focus and trends in nuclear science and technology in Ghana: A bibliometric study based on the INIS database. Library Philosophy and Practice. Paper 1212. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1212.
12 Ahmad, P. (2007). LIS education in Pakistan at postgraduate level. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal, 38(2), 12-23.
13 Ahmad, S., & Mahmood, K. (2011). Library and information science education in Pakistan: A decade of development - 2000 to 2009. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal, 42(3), 3-12.
14 Ameen, K. (2011). Changing scenario of librarianship in Pakistan: Managing with the challenges and opportunities. Library Management, 32(3), 171-182.   DOI
15 Ameen, K., & Ullah, M. (2013). Challenges of getting faculty status: Perception of university librarians in Pakistan. The International Information & Library Review, 45(1), 83-91.   DOI
16 Arts & Humanities Research Council (2014). The academic book of the future: Call for proposals. Swindon, UK: AHRC. Retrieved from http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funding-Opportunities/Pages/Future-of-the-Academic-Book.aspx.
17 Aslam Bhatti, M., & Arif, M. (2006). Library and information science distance education and continuing professional development in Pakistan. Library Review, 55(5), 307-313. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00242530610667576.   DOI
18 Association of Research Librarians (ARL) (n.d). Scholarly communication. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/scholarly-communication#.VVWa2EZ5lmM.
19 Liu, Z. (2003).Trends in transforming scholarly communication and their implications. Information Processing & Management, 39(6), 889-898.   DOI
20 Jan, S. U., & Anwar, M. A. (2013). Impact of Pakistani authors in the GOOGLE world: A study of library and information science faculty. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 980.
21 Kwon, N. H., Lee, J. Y., & Chung, E. K. (2012). Understanding scientific research lifecycle: Based on bioand nano-scientists’ research activities. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 46(3), 103-131.   DOI
22 Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2009). The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 858-862.   DOI
23 Lee, J. Y., Chung, E. K., & Kwon, N. H. (2012). Scientists’ information behavior for bridging the gaps encountered in the process of the scientific research lifecycle. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 29(3), 99-122.   DOI
24 Mahmood, K. (1996). Library and information services in Pakistan: A review of articles published in foreign journals. The International Information & Library Review, 28(4), 383-405.   DOI
25 Mahmood, K., & Shafique, F. (2010). Changing research scenario in Pakistan and demand for research qualified LIS professionals. Library Review, 59(4), 291-303.   DOI
26 Maron, N. L., & Smith, K. K. (2008). Current models of digital scholarly communication: Results of an investigation conducted by Ithaka for the Association of Research Libraries. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
27 Naseer, M. M., & Mahmood, K. (2009). LIS research in Pakistan: An analysis of Pakistan Library and Information Science Journal 1998-2007. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2009 (June).
28 Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.   DOI
29 Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
30 Samdani, R. A., & Bhatti, R. (2011). Doctoral research in library and information science by Pakistani professionals: An analysis. Library Philosophy & Practices (November 2011). Retrieved from http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/samdani-bhatti.pdf.
31 Nightingale, J. M., & Marshall, G. (2012). Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance. Radiography, 18(2), 60-67.   DOI
32 Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., & Huntington, P. (2004). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: What do authors want? Learned Publishing, 17(4), 261-273.   DOI
33 Sarli, C. C., Dubinsky, E. K., & Holmes, K. L. (2010). Beyond citation analysis: A model for assessment of research impact. JMLA, 98(1), 17.   DOI
34 Schlögl, C., & Stock, W. G. (2008). Practitioners and academics as authors and readers: The case of LIS journals. Journal of Documentation, 64(5), 643-666.   DOI
35 Thorin, S. E. (2006). Global changes in scholarly communication. In H. S. Ching, P. W. T. Poon, & C. McNaught (Eds.), eLearning and digital publishing (pp. 221-240). Dordrecht: Springer.
36 Warraich, N. F., & Ahmad, S. (2011). Pakistan Journal of Library and Information Science: A bibliometric analysis. Pakistan Journal of Library & Information Science, 12, 1-7.
37 Todd, H. (2012). A partnership to support the research lifecycle: A case study from the University of Queensland Library. In International Conference on Change and Challenge: Redefine the Future of Academic Libraries, Peking University, Beijing, China, 4-6 November 2012.
38 Vaughan, K. T. L., Hayes, B. E., Lerner, R. C., McElfresh, K. R., Pavlech, L., Romito, D., & Morris, E. N. (2013). Development of the research lifecycle model for library services. JMLA, 101(4), 310-314.   DOI
39 Wolski, M., & Richardson, J. (2014). A model for institutional infrastructure to support digital scholarship. Publications, 2(4), 83-99.   DOI
40 Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
41 Willard, P., Kennan, M. A., Wilson, C. S., & White, H. D. (2008). Publication by Australian LIS academics and practitioners: A preliminary investigation. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 39(2), 65-78.   DOI