[RSS][Google]

http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/

Library Philosophy and Practice 2012

ISSN 1522-0222

Annals of Library and Information Studies, 2002–2010: A Bibliometric Study

Dr. Kamal Lochan Jena
Librarian, College of Engineering & Technology
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Dr. Dillip K Swain
Lecturer
PG Dept of Library and Information Science
North Orissa University
Baripada, Odisha, India

Dr. K. C. Sahoo
Dean
School of AIS
Professor and Head
Dept. of Library & Information Science
Dr. H. S. Gour University
Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India

Introduction

Research publications are the embodiments of the intellectual thought contents expressed in published literature whose key objective is to transmit innovative ideas or information to any specific field of knowledge towards the further development of a subject or a discipline. In this respect bibliometric study is regarded as one of the crucial areas of research in the field of Library and Information Science. Moreover, bibliometrics study is used as an instrument in the collection building policy by providing the precise and much needed information to the managers to take the right decision in right time as to what documents they should select and what documents they should discard from the existing collections of their respective libraries. Contextually, the present study attempts to measure the publication traits of a premier Indian referred journal namely, Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS) from 2002 to 2010.

ALIS is a leading library science journal being published by The National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR), New Delhi on quarterly basis. This journal publishes articles, documentation notes and research reviews on library, documentation and information science, information systems, services and products, information technology, information users, bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics, education and training and other related topics (www.niscair.res.in). Therefore a bibliometric study of this journal is of immense significance.

Review of Literature

Though the statistics was applied to study the literature in any subject but the first recorded study of Bibliometric topic was in 1917 by Coles and Eales (1917) with the title 'Statistical analysis of literature of history of comparative anatomy' which served as a model for applying the counting technique in the evaluation of international activities. Pritchard (1969) first introduced the term 'Bibliometrics' in 1969 to mean 'the application of mathematics and statistical methods to books and other media of communications'. Roy (1983) has defined bibliometrics as a 'study of the process of information use by analyzing the characteristics of documents and their distribution by statistical methods. Mote and Deshmukh (1996) in their study on Annals of Library Science and Documentation found that journals are most cited form of communication amongst the library and information scientists and the source journal is the most cited publication. Shokeen and Kaushik (2004) in their study on Indian Journal of Plant Physiology found that journal articles are predominant with 81% of total citations. The ratio of author self citation to total citations is 1:16.65. The ratio of Journal Self Citation to total citation is 1:31.91. The results also highlight that 398 citations are below 10 years old, whereas 358 citations are below 20 years but more than 10 years old.

In the aforesaid direction, Jena (2007) in his study on Indian Journal of Fibre and Textile Research, 19962004' revealed various details of the trend of publications of this journal. Biswas, Roy and Sen (2007) conducted a bibliometric study on Economic Botany from 1994-2003 and revealed that among the citations, books accounted for 59%, journals 41% while, e-citations were quite negligible. Furthermore, they found that the highest numbers of contributions were emanated from academic institutions such as universities. Zao, et al.(2007) in their study on Educational Psychology identified six clusters of journals, including general educational psychology/learning/literacy, school psychology, measurement and counseling, Germany-based educational psychology, creativity, and the other related themes. Furthermore, the study revealed that a small number of journals accounted for a relatively high percentage of the intra-disciplinary citations; the majority of the selected journals cited more than being cited in the field. Turk (2008) indicated that there is quite a uniform way about methodology of citation counts and substantial research about motivation for URL citations to LIS articles. Willet (2008) found that many of the most cited papers in the Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling describe software packages that play a key role in modern chemoinformatics research. Zainab, Ani and Anur (2009) in their bibliometric study on Malayasian Journal of Computer Science evaluated the article productivity of the journal from 1985 to 2007 using Lotka's Law. The study further revealed authorship, co-authorship pattern by degree of authors' collaboration that ranged from 0.25 to 0.95. Asha and Anil (2010) under took a bibliometric study of 4798 citations appended to 400 articles in five volumes (2003-2007) of the Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics and found that the most cited documents are articles from research journals and the foreign authors have contributed more than Indian authors. Swain (2011) in his scientometric analysis of Library Philosophy and Practice from 2004 to 2009 found that the degree of collaboration in LPP ranged from 0.222 to 0.52 and the highest numbers of contributors hailed from Nigeria, followed by USA, India, and Iran. Swain and Panda (2012) conducted a bibliometric study on Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2002 to 2010 and found that due to absolute domination of solo contributions, the visibility of collaborative contribution was found remarkably less. The study further revealed that about one third of the total publications received citations, more than half of the cited articles carried just one citation, one fourth got 2 citations, and the rest received citations between 3 to 9 times. Jena, Swain and Sahu (2012) in their bibliometric study of The Electronic Library from 2003 to 2009 revealed some interesting bibliometric traits of this journal. Taking the above mentioned literature into context, the present study aims to provide some value addition to the corpus of literature on bibliometric studies.

Objectives of the Study

The present study intends to analyze the publication trends in ALIS during the period 2002 to 2010. The key objectives of the study are:

  • To study the year wise distribution of articles;
  • To study the citation pattern of articles;
  • To study the bibliographical forms of documents;
  • To study the authorship pattern;
  • To study the length of articles;
  • To study the geographical distribution of authors; and
  • To study the age of documents.

Methodology

For the analysis of the study, nine volumes (Vol 49 to 57) containing 36 issues of "Annals of Library and Information Studies" published during the year 2002 to 2010 have been taken up for evaluation. The details with regard to each published article such as number of articles in each issue of the journal, number of authors, name of authors, place of authors, number of references and their forms, number of pages, etc., were recorded and analyzed for making observations. The data were collected; organised and analysed using MS-Excel spreadsheets. The tables and graphs were generated in accordance with the objectives of the study. For the sake of convenience, only three major forms of citations comprising of journals, books and web resources were taken into the purview of the study while proceedings (conference/seminars/workshops), reports, theses, notes, lectures, speeches, press releases, white papers, employment gazettes, interviews, commentary, news items and such other materials which were found relatively less by their individual numbers were clubbed up into others category. Furthermore, web resources were differentiated from electronic journals. The gathered data after due scrutiny, were tabulated and processed for analysis and subsequent interpretation. The degree of collaboration (DC) of the contributors was derived using the Subramanyam(1983) formula which states that the degree of collaboration is the ratio between the number of multiple authored papers and the number of multiple authored papers plus number of single authored papers. This formula can be represented as follows:

NM

DC= --------------

NM + NS

Where, DC = Degree of collaboration

NM = Number of multiple authored papers

NS = Number of single authored papers

Analysis and Discussion

Year Wise Distribution of Articles

Table 1: Year Wise Distribution of Articles

Year

No of Articles in Each Issue

Total

% of Articles

Cumulative Total of Articles

Cumulative % of Articles

Cumulative Average no of Articles per Issue

Mar

Jun

Sep

Dec

2002

5

4

5

4

18

7.287

18

7.287

4.500

2003

5

4

5

5

19

7.692

37

14.980

4.625

2004

5

6

6

4

21

8.502

58

23.482

4.833

2005

5

6

6

6

23

9.312

81

32.794

5.063

2006

6

6

7

7

26

10.526

107

43.320

5.350

2007

6

9

6

7

28

11.336

135

54.656

5.625

2008

9

10

9

7

35

14.170

170

68.826

6.071

2009

7

8

9

10

34

13.765

204

82.591

6.375

2010

9

9

15

10

43

17.409

247

100.00

6.861

Table 1 reveals that there is a steady rise in the number of publications of articles ranging from 2002 to 2010. Out of the total 247 articles the maximum numbers of articles are reported to have been published in the year 2010 (43 articles; 17.4%) while the least number of articles have been published in the year 2002 (18 articles; 7.29%). On an average, ALIS has accommodated 7 articles per issue.

Year Wise Distribution of Articles and Corresponding Citations

Table 2: Year wise Distribution of Articles and Citations

Year

Articles /Year

Total Citations /Year

Cumulative Total of Articles

Cumulative Total of Citations

Average Citations /Article

Cumulative Average Citations/ Article

2002

18

172

18

172

9.556

9.556

2003

19

330

37

502

17.368

13.568

2004

21

160

58

662

7.619

11.414

2005

23

321

81

983

13.957

12.136

2006

26

386

107

1369

14.846

12.794

2007

28

384

135

1753

13.714

12.985

2008

35

590

170

2343

16.857

13.782

2009

34

675

204

3018

19.853

14.794

2010

43

1038

247

4056

24.140

16.421

Figure 1: Year Wise Distribution of Articles and Corresponding Citations

1

Table 2 shows the year wise distribution of articles, the corresponding total number of citations and the average number of citations per article. It is found that there is a total of 4056citations distributed over 36 journal issues carrying a total of 247 articles. Moreover, it is found that the rate of citations of articles has witnessed an increasing trend. The lowest number of average citations per article is found in the year 2002 (nearly 10 citations per article) and the highest number of average citations per article is reported in the year 2010 (24 citations per article).

Bibliographic Forms of Documents

Table 3: Bibliographical Forms of Documents

Sl No

Bibliographical Form

No of Citations

% of Citations

Cumulative no of Citations

% of Cumulative Citations

1

Journals

2329

57.421

2329

57.421

2

Books

671

16.543

3000

73.964

3

Web resources

470

11.588

3470

85.552

4

Others

586

14.448

4056

100.00

2Figure 2: Bibliographic Forms of Documents

Table 3 depicts the distribution of bibliographical forms of citations. It is observed that unlike other related studies, the journal form is the most predominant form followed by books and web resources. Out of the total citations, journals carry the highest number of citations (2329 citations; 57.4%) followed by books (671 citations; 16.5%), and web resources (470 citations; 11.6%). The rest forms which are grouped into 'others' were found less.

Authorship Pattern

Table 4: Authorship Pattern

Sl No

Rank

Authorship Pattern

No of Articles

% of Articles

Cumulative Articles

Cumulative % of Articles

1

1

Two

117

47.368

117

47.368

2

2

Single

80

32.389

197

79.757

3

3

Three

43

17.409

240

97.166

4

4

> Three

7

2.834

247

100.00

Table 4 indicates that majority of authors preferred to publish their research results in two authorship mode (47.4%) followed by individual authorship mode (32.4%) and three authorship mode (17.409%) while, articles published by more than three authors (7 articles; 2.9%) were quite negligible. The Degree of Collaboration of authors can be calculated as

DC = 167 / (167 + 80) = 0.676

As DC value exceeds 0.5 and tends to 1, it is deduced that multi-authored citations occupy the prominent position and the research is based on team research rather than solo ones.

Ranking of Authors

Table 5: Ranking of Authors

Sl No

Rank

Name of Contributor

No of Contributions

1

1

Sen B K

20

2

2

B M Gupta

8

3

=2

K C Garg

8

4

3

Bidyarthi Dutta

6

5

4

V K J Jeevan

5

6

=4

Suresh Kumar

5

7

=4

G K Manjunath

5

8

=4

Vijai Kumar

5

9

5

Dineesh K Gupta

4

10

=5

Haneefa K Mohamed

4

11

=5

B S Biradar

4

12

=5

B T Sampath Kumar

4

13

=5

D Shivalingaiah

4

14

=5

Anup Kumar Das

4

15

=5

S Kumar

4

16

=5

V L Kalyane

4

17

18 Nos of Authors

3 each

18

45 Nos of Authors

2 each

19

239 Nos of Authors

1 each

Table 5 depicts the ranking of authors. There are a total of 318 authors who contributed 247 numbers of articles to Annals of Library and Information Studies from 2002 to 2010. From Table 5 it is found that B K Sen, who happens to be a bibliometric exponent in India, is the leading author contributing twenty articles followed by B M Gupta and K C Garg with eight articles each securing the second position. Bidyarthi Dutta contributed six articles and ranked third. V K J Jeevan, Suresh Kumar, G K Manjunath and Vijai Kumar contributed five articles each securing fourth rank. Dinesh K Gupta, Haneefa K Mohamed, B S Biradar, B T Sampath Kumar, D Shivalingaiah, Anup Kumar Das, S Kumar and V L Kalyane who contributed four articles each are bracketed in the fifth rank. Besides the above mentioned authors, 18 authors contributed three articles each, 45 authors contributed two articles each and 239 authors contributed one article each.

Length of Articles

Table 6: Length of Articles

Year

No of Articles

Cumulative Total of Articles

Pages

Cumulative Total of Pages

Average Pages per Article

Cumulative Average No of Pages

2002

18

18

162

162

9.000

9.000

2003

19

37

165

327

8.684

8.838

2004

21

58

149

476

7.095

8.207

2005

23

81

154

630

6.696

7.778

2006

26

26

202

832

7.769

7.776

2007

28

54

193

1026

6.929

7.600

208

35

89

310

1336

8.857

7.859

2009

34

123

276

1612

8.118

7.902

2010

43

166

393

1998

8.977

8.089

Table 6 shows that the minimum average length of article is 7 pages which is reported for the cumulative issues of 2004 while, the maximum average page of the article is 9 pages for the year 2002. Taking all the issues from 2002 to 2010 into account, it is found that ALIS has accommodated on an average 8 pages per article.

Geographical Distribution of Contributors

Table 7: Geographical Distribution of Contributors (Equal Credit Method)

Sl No

Rank

Credit Points

Country

No of Contributions

Percentage of Contribution

1

1

232.5

India

454

95.378

2

2

2.5

Nigeria

4

0.840

3

3

2

The Netherlands

2

0.420

4

=3

2

USA

2

0.420

5

4

1.833

Belgium

3

0.630

6

5

1.5

Botswana

2

0.420

7

6

1

Bangladesh

2

0.420

8

=6

1

Srilanka

2

0.420

9

=6

1

Honolulu

1

0.210

10

7

0.667

Hungery

2

0.420

11

8

0.5

China

1

0.210

12

=8

0.5

Nepal

1

0.210

13

   

Total

476

100.00

From Table 7 it is evident that there are a total of 476 authors representing 12 different countries. The geographical distribution of articles is decided basing upon the address of authors' affiliation given in the article. Here, equal credit method (Chua, et al, 2002; Lowry et al; Serenko, et al, 2010) is employed for ranking of country productivity by scores. This method assigns one point to each article which is equally shared among authors. For example, if an article has been contributed by n authors, then each author will earn 1/n points for his country. For instance, three authors from USA, two authors from India, and one author from UK have contributed one article. In that case, each author will earn (1/6) a score of 0.167 for his country and by that way USA will score 0.50, India-0.334, and UK- 0.167. In this study, the share of contribution of India (232.5 points; 454 contributions) is found to be at the top. Among other countries, Nigeria (2.5 points) with the contribution of four articles ranked second. The Netherlands and USA have 2.0 points with two contributions each ranked third in the list. Rest countries have scored less than 2.0 points and the contribution of articles with varied contributions from one to three articles.

Table 7(a): Geographical Distribution of Contributors (Indian States)

Sl No

Rank

Credit Points

Name of State

No of Contributions

1

1

57.239

New Delhi

101

2

2

39.229

Karnataka

81

3

3

20.246

West Bengal

40

4

4

18.908

Maharashtra

51

5

5

17.5

Kerala

24

6

6

14.972

Uttar Pradesh

32

7

7

13.077

Tamilnadu

33

8

8

7.83

Madhya Pradesh

19

9

9

6.75

Rajasthan

10

10

10

5.332

Uttaranchal

9

11

11

5.167

Manipur

10

12

12

5

Odisha

8

13

13

4.5

Andhra Pradesh

9

14

14

3.5

Haryana

6

15

15

2.667

Assam

3

16

16

2.5

Punjab

3

17

17

2

Himachal Pradesh

2

18

18

1.5

Chandigarh

2

19

=18

1.5

Gujarat

4

20

19

1

J & K

2

21

20

0.75

Pondicherry

2

22

21

0.5

Sikkim

1

23

=21

0.5

Mizoram

1

24

22

0.333

Jharkhand

1

 

Total

232.5

 

454

Total Credit points for India is 232.5

From Table 7, it is found that India has scored 232.5 points contributing 454 numbers of articles and has 95.378 % of total number of contribution. So it was decided to make a study of geographical distribution of contributors among different states of India which is presented in Table 7(a). The analysis shows that New Delhi scored 57.239 points with 101 numbers of contributions and ranked first. Among the other states Karnataka scored 39.229 points with 81 contributions, West Bengal scored 20.246 points with 40 contributions ranked second and third respectively. Between the score 10 to 20 points Maharashtra scores 18.908 points with 51 contributions, Kerala scores17.5 points with 24 contributions, Uttar Pradesh scores14.972 points with 32 contributions, Tamilnadu scores 13.077 points with 33 numbers of contributions and ranked fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respectively. Other states have less than 10 points with the contribution of less than 20 articles each.

Chronological Distribution of Citations

Table 8: Chronological Distribution of Citations

Sl No

Age of Citations

No of Citations

Cumulative no of Citations

% of Citations

Cumulative % of Citations

1

0

57

57

1.405

1.405

2

1

202

259

4.980

6.386

3

2

219

478

5.399

11.785

4

3

208

686

5.128

16.913

5

4

203

889

5.005

21.918

6

5

192

1081

4.734

26.652

7

6

182

1263

4.487

31.139

8

7

195

1458

4.808

35.947

9

8

166

1624

4.093

40.039

10

9

139

1763

3.427

43.466

11

10

184

1947

4.536

48.003

12

11

134

2081

3.304

51.307

13

12

114

2195

2.811

54.117

14

13

101

2296

2.490

56.607

15

14

110

2406

2.712

59.320

16

15

85

2491

2.096

61.415

17

16

82

2573

2.022

63.437

18

17

68

2641

1.677

65.113

19

18

55

2696

1.356

66.469

20

19

43

2739

1.060

67.530

21

20

61

2800

1.504

69.034

22

21

36

2836

0.888

69.921

23

22

33

2869

0.814

70.735

24

23

57

2926

1.405

72.140

25

24

44

2970

1.085

73.225

26

25

34

3004

0.838

74.063

27

26

37

3041

0.912

74.975

28

27

44

3085

1.085

76.060

29

28

29

3114

0.715

76.775

30

29

23

3137

0.567

77.342

31

30

29

3166

0.715

78.057

32

31-40

173

3339

4.265

82.322

33

41-50

91

3430

2.244

84.566

34

51-60

36

3466

0.888

85.454

35

61-70

15

3481

0.370

85.823

36

71-80

17

3498

0.419

86.243

37

81-90

17

3515

0.419

86.662

38

90-100

3

3518

0.074

86.736

39

101-200

3

3521

0.074

86.810

40

N.D.

535

4056

13.190

100.000

Figure 3: Half Life Period

3

The analysis of the age of citations helps to determine the useful life of information resources used in any field of knowledge. It is also used by academic librarians to maintain or discard monographs or serials in the library which would be no longer needed by researchers (Sharma, 2009). Table 8 represents the age distribution of all documents. It is found that authors' citation of documents ranged from very recent year of publication to as old as documents of 200 years old, and the half life of the cited documents is about 11 years.

Findings

The findings of the study are summarized as:

The contribution of articles to each volume of Annals of Library & Information Studies is constantly increasing from year to year

The average citations per article is 16;

The average number of pages per article is 8;

It is found that the journal citations are predominant (57.4%of the total citations) followed by books (16.5%) and web resources (11.6 %);

Two authored papers are found to be the highest followed by single-authored and then three- authored papers. The degree of collaboration in Annals of Library & Information Studies is found to be 0.676;

In regards to country productivity, India topped the list. In regards to states, New Delhi stood first; and

The half life period of document citations is 11 years.

Conclusion

Annals of Library and Information Studies earlier published as Annals of Library and Documentation that brought out its maiden issue in the year 1952, is identified as one of the best referred journals in the field of Library and information Science in India with a publishing history of 58 years. Due to its standard editorial policy, ALIS has felt its presence in the academic arena by bringing out quality publications that have been highly appreciated by teachers, students, research scholars and authors as well. Moreover, authors feel proud of having a rich publishing experience with ALIS. The study has depicted a nice portrait of ALIS which speaks volumes about the publication policy of this journal. Nevertheless, it has gradually promoted its value through its global readership as it is indexed in DOAJ as an open access journal. It is expected that ALIS will further grow its stature in the days ahead.

References

1. Asha, N. & Anil, K. (2010). A bibliometric study of journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics. SRELS Journal of Information Management. 47 (1); Available: www.indianjournals.com (Viewed June 12, 2010).

2. Biswas, B. C., Roy, A. & Sen B. K. (2007). Economic Botany: A bibliometric study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science. 12 (1):23-33.

3. Chua, C., Cao, L., Cousins, K. & Straub, D. W. (2002). Measuring research-production in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 3:145-215.

4. Cole, F. J. & Eales, N. B. (1917). The history of comparative anatomy. Part 1: a Statistical analysis of literature. Science Progress. 11: 578-96.

5. Jena K. L. (2006). A bibliometric analysis of the journal 'Indian Journal of Fibre and Textile Research, 19962004. Annals of Library and Information Studies. 53 (1):22-30.

6. Jena, K.L., Swain, D. K. and Sahu, B. B. (2012). Scholarly communication of The Electronic Library from 2003-2009: a bibliometric study. The Electronic Library. 30(1), pp.103-119. DOI: 10.1108/02640471211204097.

7. Lowry, P. B., Karuga, G. G. & Richardson, V. J. (2007). Assuring leading institutions, faculty, and articles in premier information systems research journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 20:142-203.

8. Mote, M. V. & Deshmukh, P. P. (1996). Citation analysis of Annals of Library Science and Documentation. Annals of Library Science and Documentation. 43 (1): 11-25.

9. Prtichard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation. 25 (4): 348-49.

10. Roy, P. M. (1983). Towards a theory of citing in citation analysis studies. In Developing horizons in Library and Information science, Vol 1 by C D Sharma and Kailas Vyas, Print Well; Jaipur: 223-35.

11. Serenko, A., et al. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994-2008). Journal of Knowledge Management. 4 (1):3-23.

12. Sharma, R. M. (2009). Research Publication trend among scientists of Central Potato Research Institute: A Bibliometric Study. Annals of Library and Information Studies. 56 (1): 29-34.

13. Shokeen, A. & Kaushik, S. K. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology: A citation analysis. Annals of Library and Information Studies. 51:108-115.

14. Subramanian, K. (1983). Bibliometric Studies of Research Collaboration: A Review. Journal of Information Science. 6: 35-37.

15. Swain, D. K. (2011). Library Philosophy and Practice, 2004-2009: A Scientometric Appraisal. Library Philosophy and Practice; Available in http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/

16. Swain, D. K. and Panda, K. C. (2012). Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2002-2010: A Bibliometric Study. Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal. 33; Available: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl133SP.pdf

17. Turk, N. (2008). Citation impact of open access journals. New Library World. 109 (1/2):65-74.

18. Willett, P. (2008). A bibliometric analysis of the literature of chemo informatics. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives. 60 (1): 4-17.

19. Zainab, A. N., Ani, K. W. U. & Anur, N. B. A single journal study: Malaysian Journal of Computer Science. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science. 22 (1):1-18.

20. Zao, et al. (2007). Scholarly communication in Educational Psychology: A journal citation analysis. Collection Building. 26 (4):112-118.