Evaluating the correlation between different impact indicators for library and information science journals: Comparing the journal citation reports and scopus

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Farouk Ali
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Impact Indicators ◽  
Journal Citation

scholarly journals Use of the Journal Citation Reports for Serials Management in Research Libraries: An Investigation of the Effect of Self-Citation on Journal Rankings in Library and Information Science and Genetics

2000 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Nisonger
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Major Effect ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Journal Rankings ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Citation

This article explores the use of the Institute for Scientific Information’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for journal management in academic libraries. The advantages and disadvantages to using JCR citation data for journal management are outlined, and a literature review summarizes reported uses of these data by libraries and scholars. This study researches the impact of journal self-citation on JCR rankings of library and information science (LIS) and genetics journals. The 1994 rankings by impact factor and total citations received were recalculated with journal self-citations removed; then the recalculated rankings were compared to the original rankings to analyze the effect of self-citations. It is concluded that librarians can use JCR data without correcting for journal self-citation, although self-citations do exert a major effect on the rankings for a small number of journals.

The Visualization of the Citation Patterns of Some Canadian Journals

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Journal Citation

In order to easily see the citation patterns of a journal or subject area it is very useful to use a graphical diagram to visualize all the connections between journals. Using data from derived from the Journal Citation Reports, this study investigates the citation patterns of three Canadian Journals in three subject areas: library and information science, psychology and mathematics.Afin de mieux voir les modèles de citations d’un journal ou d’un domaine, il peut être très utile d’utiliser un schéma graphique pour visualiser toutes les relations entre les journaux. Utilisant les données dérivées du Journal Citation Reports, cette étude examine les modèles de citations de trois journaux canadiens dans trois domaines : la bibliothéconomie et les sciences de l’information, la psychologie et les mathématiques. 

scholarly journals Análisis de la internacionalización de la Revista Española de Documentación Científica: 2010-2015

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrés Pandiella-Dominique ◽  
Carlos García-Zorita ◽  
Elías Sanz-Casado
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
America Latina ◽  
La Red ◽  
Journal Citation

Se analizan los 197 artículos publicados en la Revista Española de Documentación Científica (REDC) durante el sexenio 2010-2015. El 25,9% de los mismos se relaciona con estudios métricos de la información e indicadores científicos, temática que ha caracterizado a la revista desde su creación en el año 1977, y por la que forma parte del clúster de Cienciometría y Bibliometría, según la red de citación de revistas de la categoría Library and Information Science (LIS), del Journal Citation Reports, donde ocupa una posición media en el ranking de revistas de su especialidad, oscilando entre el segundo y tercer cuartil. La REDC mantiene un cierto carácter endogámico, tanto en las referencias aportadas por la propia revista (5% del total de referencias), como en las autocitas recibidas (39% de todas las citas), la mayoría de ellas referidas a estudios bibliométricos, lo que se explica por su alta especialización en dicha materia. El impacto normalizado (INR, Impacto Normalizado a la Revista) para las distintas áreas temáticas publicadas no está relacionado con la productividad de cada área, sino que son las áreas menos representadas las que mayor impacto presentan. Por otra parte, los artículos publicados por instituciones extranjeras, tanto en colaboración con España o sin colaboración española, suponen el 16% del total (32 artículos), y proceden principalmente de América Latina, destacando Cuba y Colombia como los más productivos.

scholarly journals The Interdisciplinary Influence of Library and Information Science 1996–2004: A Journal-to-Journal Citation Analysis

2008 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 546-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jere Odell ◽  
Ralph Gabbard
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Empirical Information ◽  
Percent Increase ◽  
Journal Citation

Using citation data from Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 1996–2004, this research replicates Meyer and Spencer's analysis of other-field citations to Library and Information Science (LIS) journals from 1972 to 1994. After 1994, JCR added LIS journals emphasizing empirical, information science research and simultaneously dropped journals addressing the profession of librarianship. The newly added journals attract a broader interdisciplinary readership—a readership reflected in a 14 percent increase in other-field citations of the LIS journals. The LIS journals included in both this and the Meyer and Spencer research, a list dominated by titles frequently read and cited by others in the LIS discipline, have not received an equal increase in other-field citations.

Knowledge of use and type of references in Library and Information Science and Legal Medicine as support for specialized librarians

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-600
Author(s):  
Nerea Nieto-Pino ◽  
Cristina Faba-Pérez ◽  
Rocío Gómez-Crisóstomo
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Legal Medicine ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Environment Impact ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Reliable Source ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Specialized Institutions ◽  
American Society

Librarians of specialized institutions need to have solid knowledge of the scientific environment (impact of publications, use of citations and scientific references, etc.) related to the group for which they work in order to properly manage the collection of their libraries. The present research analyses the evolution of the use and types of references cited by academics in Library and Information Science and in Legal Medicine as an aid for specialist librarians in this sense. The study has a dual aspect: one is to determine how the behaviour of references, especially Web references, in relation to accessibility and use has evolved over 15 years in alternating periods (1999, 2004, 2009, 2013) in these two areas, and the other is to determine from the type of references scientists of prestige use in their publications whether they consider the Internet to be a reliable source of information for their research. Two journals with high impact factors according to Journal Citation Reports were selected from each category: Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology (JASIST) and Information Processing & Management (IP&M) corresponding to Information Science, and Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology (RT&P) and Forensic Science International (FSI) corresponding to Legal Medicine. The results showed greater accessibility and use of Web references in the Information Science community, but also considerable progress in these aspects in recent years in Legal Medicine.

scholarly journals LIS Practitioner-focused Research Trends Toward Open Access Journals, Academic-focused Research Toward Traditional Journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hayman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
English Language ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Different Types

A Review of: Chang, Y-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002   Abstract  Objective – To examine the occupational characteristics and publication habits of library and information science (LIS) authors regarding traditional journals and open access journals. Design – Content analysis. Setting – English language research articles published in open access (OA) journals and non-open access (non-OA) journals from 2008 to 2013 that are indexed in LIS databases. Subjects – The authorship characteristics for 3,472 peer-reviewed articles. Methods – This researcher identified 33 total journals meeting the inclusion criteria by using the LIS categories within 2012 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find 13 appropriate non-OA journals, and within the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify 20 appropriate OA journals. They found 1,665 articles by 3,186 authors published in the non-OA journals, and another 1,807 articles by 3,446 authors within the OA journals. The researcher used author affiliation to determine article authors’ occupations using information included in the articles themselves or by looking for information on the Internet, and excluded articles when occupational information could not be located. Authors were categorized into four occupational categories: Librarians (practitioners), Academics (faculty and researchers), Students (graduate or undergraduate), and Others. Using these categories, the author identified 10 different types of collaborations for co-authored articles. Main Results – This research involves three primary research questions. The first examined the occupational differences between authors publishing in OA journals versus non-OA journals. Academics (faculty and researchers) more commonly published in non-OA journals (58.1%) compared to OA journals (35.6%). The inverse was true for librarian practitioners, who were more likely to publish in OA journals (53.9%) compared to non-OA journals (25.5%). Student authors, a combined category that included both graduate and undergraduate students, published more in non-OA journals (10.1%) versus in OA journals (5.0%). The final category of “other” saw only a slight difference between non-OA (6.3%) and OA (5.5%) publication venues. This second research question explored the difference in the proportion of LIS authors who published in OA and non-OA journals. Overall, authors were more likely to publish in OA journals (72.4%) vs. non-OA (64.3%). Librarians tended to be primary authors in OA journals, while LIS academics tend to be primary authors for articles in non-OA publications. Academics from outside the LIS discipline but contributing to the disciplinary literature were more likely to publish in non-OA journals. Regarding trends over time, this research showed a decrease in the percentage of librarian practitioners and “other” authors publishing in OA journals, while academics and students increased their OA contributions rates during the same period.  Finally, the research explored whether authors formed different types of collaborations when publishing in OA journals as compared to non-OA journals. When examining co-authorship of articles, just over half of all articles published in OA journals (54.4%) and non-OA journals (53.2%) were co-authored. Overall the researcher identified 10 types of collaborative relationships and examined the rates for publishing in OA versus non-OA journals for these relationships. OA journals saw three main relationships, with high levels of collaborations between practitioner librarians (38.6% of collaborations), between librarians and academics (20.5%), and between academics only (18.0%). Non-OA journals saw four main relationships, with collaborations between academics appearing most often (34.1%), along with academic-student collaborations (21.5%), practitioner librarian collaborations (15.5%), and librarian-academic collaborations (13.2%). Conclusion – LIS practitioner-focused research tends to appear more often in open access journals, while academic-focused researcher tends to appear more often in non-OA journals. These trends also appear in research collaborations, with co-authored works involving librarians appearing more often in OA journals, and collaborations that include academics more likely to appear in non-OA journals.

Research productivity of library scholars

2015 ◽  
Vol 116 (7/8) ◽  
pp. 433-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Munazza Jabeen ◽  
Liu Yun ◽  
Muhammad Rafiq ◽  
Misbah Jabeen
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Average Rate ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Mapping Software ◽  
Library Professionals

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore, by a quantitative analysis, growth rates of, and trends in, global publications in the field of library and information science (LIS) produced by library science professionals. Design/methodology/approach – A survey approach was used in this paper. Journal Citation Reports 2010 was the major source for selecting 40 LIS core journals. A bibliometric analysis was conducted. Visualization and mapping software was utilized to present a picture of the growth in and trends relating to LIS publications. Findings – A total of 18,371 research articles were published from 2003 to 2012. A significant growth rate (11.37 per cent) was found in 2009. Self-citation tendencies have been increasing, with an average rate of 38.56 per cent. Of all publication types, “article” was the most popular among LIS researchers. China has contributed remarkably in terms of collaborative publications. Practical implications – The present study could be helpful for library professionals, subject specialists and policy makers. These findings may encourage library professionals to integrate and monitor library functions through bibliometric analysis. Originality/value – This paper identifies growth and trends in publications by LIS researchers through use of bibliometrics.

An Alternate Method for Ranking Journals Using Citations

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Individual Paper ◽  
Google Search ◽  
Journal Citation

An alternate method for ranking journals based on the algorithm used in the Google search engine for pagerank is applied to the information science and library science set of journals from Journal Citation Reports. A method of calculating individual paper influence based on this algorithm is proposed.Une méthode alternative pour classer les périodiques et basée sur l’algorithme utilisé par la fonction pagerank du moteur de recherche Google est appliquée à l’ensemble des périodiques des sciences de l’information et de bibliothéconomie de Journal Citation Reports. Une méthode pour calculer l’influence individuelle des articles basés sur cet algorithme est proposée. 

scholarly journals The Perception of Library and Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans and ARL Library Directors: A Replication of the Kohl–Davis Study

2005 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Nisonger ◽  
Charles H. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Library Directors ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
The Past ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Education Deans ◽  
Comparison Of The Results

Analyzing the collective opinion of presumed experts, often termed a perception study, is a frequently used approach for rating journals or evaluating education programs. Replicating the 1985 Kohl–Davis study, seventy-one library and information science (LIS) journals are ranked according to their mean rating on a 1 to 5 ordinal scale by deans of ALA-accredited education programs and by the directors of ARL libraries (surveyed during the summer of 2003). Comparison of the results with the 1985 study found considerable continuity in journal perceptions over the past two decades, but more so by directors than deans. A weak to moderate correlation was found between deans’ ratings and Journal Citation Reports citation scores, whereas the correlations between directors’ perceptions and citation data were weak to nonexistent. The findings confirm a hierarchy of prestige among LIS journals, but the hierarchical order differs somewhat between deans and directors.

Published errors and errata in library and information science journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 61-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh ◽  
Marzieh Morovati
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Significant Relationships ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
The Usa

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the characterization of corrections to the papers published in Library and Information Science (LIS) journals during 2006-2015. It studies the frequency and location of the published errors, time interval between the publication of the original papers and their corrections, as well as associations between journals’ impact factors (IF) and their correction rates. Design/methodology/approach The population of the study comprised of 369 errata published in 50 LIS journals. The data were obtained from Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science (WoS) and Journal Citation Reports. Findings The results of the study revealed a correction rate of 0.37 per cent for LIS journals, which is substantially lower than that of 124 subject categories with at-least one erratum in the WoS. Among the countries with the highest number of errata in LIS journals, the USA ranked first, followed by China and England. However, the greatest share of errata to overall LIS publications of the country was seen in Kazakhstan, Russia and Botswana. Results showed that no statistically significant relationships existed between the journals’ IF and their correction rates. The highest proportion of errors published in LIS literature was occurred in authors’ information, references, tables and figures. Moreover, the average time from publication of the original articles to their corresponding errata was found to be 8.7 months. Social implications Correcting the unintentional mistakes in scholarly articles is an ethical responsibility of researchers and journal editors. Originality/value The current research tries to investigate the characteristics of errata in the LIS field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document