JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Research Publishing by Library and Information Science Scholars in Pakistan: A Bibliometric Analysis
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Research Publishing by Library and Information Science Scholars in Pakistan: A Bibliometric Analysis
Ali, Muhammad Yousuf; Richardson, Joanna;
  PDF(new window)
 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;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
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.

2.
Ahmad, P. (2007). LIS education in Pakistan at postgraduate level. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal, 38(2), 12-23.

3.
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.

4.
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. crossref(new window)

5.
Ameen, K. (2011). Changing scenario of librarianship in Pakistan: Managing with the challenges and opportunities. Library Management, 32(3), 171-182. crossref(new window)

6.
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. crossref(new window)

7.
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.

8.
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. crossref(new window)

9.
Association of Research Librarians (ARL) (n.d). Scholarly communication. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/scholarly-communication#.VVWa2EZ5lmM.

10.
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.

11.
Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.
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.

13.
Brody, T. (2006). Evaluating research impact through open access to scholarly communication (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton).

14.
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.

15.
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.

16.
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. crossref(new window)

17.
Haider, S. J., & Mahmood, K. (2006). Post-master LIS education at Punjab University (Lahore). Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal, 37(3), 3-8.

18.
Haider, S. J., & Mahmood, K. (2007). MPhil and PhD library and information science research in Pakistan: An evaluation. Library Review, 56(5), 407-417. crossref(new window)

19.
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.

20.
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. crossref(new window)

21.
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. crossref(new window)

22.
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. crossref(new window)

23.
Liu, Z. (2003).Trends in transforming scholarly communication and their implications. Information Processing & Management, 39(6), 889-898. crossref(new window)

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.

25.
Mahmood, K., & Shafique, F. (2010). Changing research scenario in Pakistan and demand for research qualified LIS professionals. Library Review, 59(4), 291-303. crossref(new window)

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.
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. crossref(new window)

28.
Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

29.
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).

30.
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. crossref(new window)

31.
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., & Huntington, P. (2004). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: What do authors want? Learned Publishing, 17(4), 261-273. crossref(new window)

32.
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.

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. crossref(new window)

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. crossref(new window)

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.
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.

37.
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. crossref(new window)

38.
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.

39.
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

40.
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. crossref(new window)

41.
Wolski, M., & Richardson, J. (2014). A model for institutional infrastructure to support digital scholarship. Publications, 2(4), 83-99. crossref(new window)