Emerging Themes, Leaders, and Collaboration in Library and Information Science Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2025497Keywords:
Text mining, LIS, Library and Information Sciences, Research Collaboration, LIS Network AnalysisAbstract
Introduction: This study uses bibliometric methods to evaluate research articles within the library and information science (LIS) domain. The focus is to uncover trends and patterns in social network analysis related to LIS, particularly examining research collaborations and content within highly cited articles. By analyzing these aspects, the study seeks to identify influential authors, prominent research themes, and key contributors in the LIS field.
Methods: A dataset of 14,517 articles published between 1954 and 2023 was extracted from the Scopus database for bibliometric analysis. The study concentrated on publications in the LIS domain, focusing on the journal Library Philosophy and Practice. Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) was used to identify clusters within the research field, while content analysis was performed to determine prevalent topics and disciplinary influences within the articles.
Results: The analysis revealed that China is home to many of the most influential authors in the LIS domain, with the United States, China, and the United Kingdom identified as the top contributing countries to LIS research. Common research themes include information science, bibliometrics, academic libraries, information literacy, and LIS education. Two main clusters emerged from the MCA: one focused on information-related concepts and the other on bibliometrics and scholarly communication. Content analysis indicated a significant presence of topics from physics, computer science, and information technology within LIS research.
Conclusions: This study highlights key trends and patterns in LIS research, with academic libraries, information literacy, LIS education, and librarians' roles identified as critical areas for future exploration. Expanding databases and refining keyword searches are recommended to enhance knowledge dissemination and educational adaptability in the LIS field. The findings aim to support LIS researchers, facilitate research planning, and promote global interinstitutional cooperation
References
. Buzzigoli L, Giusti A, Viviani A. The evaluation of university departments. A case study for Firenze. Int Adv Econ Res. 2010;16:24–38. doi: 10.1007/s11294-009-9243-6.
2. Makki AA, Alqahtani AY, Abdulaal RMS, Madbouly AI. A novel strategic approach to evaluating higher education quality standards in university colleges using multi-criteria decision-making. Educ Sci. 2023;13(6):577. doi: 10.3390/educsci13060577.
3. Elbawab R. University rankings and goals: A cluster analysis. Economies. 2022;10(9):209. doi: 10.3390/economies10090209.
4. Rust VD, Kim S. The global competition in higher education. World Stud Educ. 2012;13(1):5–20. doi: 10.7459/wse/13.1.02.
5. Raju J. Future LIS education and evolving global competency requirements for the digital information environment: an epistemological overview. J Educ Libr Inf Sci. 2020;61(3):342–56. doi: 10.3138/jelis.61.3.2019-0088.
6. Wickert C, Post C, Doh JP, Prescott JE, Prencipe A. Management research that makes a difference: Broadening the meaning of impact. J Manag Stud. 2020;58(2):297–647. doi: 10.1111/joms.12666.
7. Nash JA, Wright DA. Profile of the chief research officer at major research universities in the United States and examination of the current pathways to the position. J Res Adm. 2013;44(2):74–93. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1156072.pdf.
8. National Research Council. Research universities and the future of America: Ten breakthrough actions vital to our nation's prosperity and security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012. Available from: http://commission.fiu.edu/helpful-documents/trade-articles/national-academies-universities-report.pdf.
9. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014. Available from: https://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog_609332/objava_105202/fajlovi/Creswell.pdf.
10. Abubakar BM. Library and information science (LIS) education in Nigeria: emerging trends, challenges, and expectations in the digital age. J Balkan Libr Union. 2021;8(1):57–67. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1748804.
11. Järvelin K, Vakkari P. LIS research across 50 years: content analysis of journal articles. J Doc. 2022;78(7):65–88. doi: 10.1108/JD-03-2021-0062.
12. Kennan M, Corrall S, Afzal W. Making space in practice and education: Research support services in academic libraries. Libr Manag. 2014;35(8/9):666–83. doi: 10.1108/LM-03-2014-0037.
13. Hou L, Luo J, Pan X. Research topic specialization of universities in information science and library science and its impact on inter-university collaboration. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022;14(15):9000. doi: 10.3390/su14159000.
14. Jabeen M, Yun L, Rafiq M, Jabeen M. Research productivity of library scholars bibliometric analysis of growth and trends of LIS publications. New Libr World. 2015;116(7-8):433–54. doi: 10.1108/NLW-11-2014-0132.
15. Jabeen M, Yun L, Rafiq M, Jabeen M, Tahir MA. Scientometric analysis of library and information science journals 2003–2012 using web of science. Int Inf Libr Rev. 2015;47(3-4):71–82. doi: 10.1080/10572317.2015.1113602.
16. Piwowar-Sulej K, Krzywonos M, Kwil I. Environmental entrepreneurship – Bibliometric and content analysis of the subject literature based on H-Core. J Clean Prod. 2021;295:126277. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126277.
17. Wahyuningrum IFS, Humaira NG, Budihardjo MA, Arumdani IS, Annisa AN, Puspita AS, Sari AM, Djajadikerta HG. Environmental sustainability disclosure in Asian countries: Bibliometric and content analysis. J Clean Prod. 2023;411:137195. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137195.
18. Chanlun J. Bibliometric analysis of published research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in library and information science of Asian countries. TLA Res J. 2023;16(1):37–56. Available from: https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tla_research/article/view/263942.
19. Maporn P, Puseerit J, Rungwisai P. Bibliometric analysis of Thai journals indexed in Scopus. TLA Bull. 2023;67(1):177–98. Available from: https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tla_bulletin/article/view/260267.
20. Wittayawuttikul R, Wipawin N. Social network analysis (SNA) for information science research. JLISSWU. 2012;5(2):126–40. Available from: https://ejournals.swu.ac.th/index.php/jlis/article/download/3029/3049/9778.
21. Siddique N, Ur Rehman S, Ahmad S, Abbas A, Khan MA. Library and information Science research in the Arab World: a bibliometric analysis 1951–2021. Glob Knowl Mem Commun. 2023;72(1-2):138-59. doi: 10.1108/GKMC-06-2021-0103.
22. Wani JA, Ganaie SA, Rehman IU. Mapping research output on library and information science research domain in South Africa: a bibliometric visualization. Inf Discov Deliv. 2023;51(2):194-212. doi: 10.1108/IDD-10-2021-0115.
23. Abdullah Sani MKJ, Sahid NZ, Saifudin N, Baba J. A bibliometric study to assess research fads in library and information science in Malaysia during 2016–2021. In: ICIS2022Penang, 5th International Conference on Information Science: 19-21 September 2022. Penang, Malaysia: Royale Chulan; 2022. p. 75-80.
24. Garg KC, Singh RK. A bibliometric study of papers published in library and information science research during 1994-2020. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol. 2022;42(1):57-63. doi: 10.14429/djlit.42.1.17480.
25. Rehman IU, Wani JA, Ganaie SA. Continuous professional development research in the Library and Information Science: A bibliometric analysis and knowledge mapping. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol. 2022;42(6):377-86. doi: 10.14429/djlit.42.6.18332.
26. Islam MA, Roy PK. Bibliometric study of scholarly productivity of library and information science research in Bangladesh from 1971-2020. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol. 2021;41(3):213-25. doi: 10.14429/djlit.41.03.16854.
27. Ibrahim C, Hardiyati R, Ayunda WA, Fadhli R. Comparative study of Asean countries research productivity in library science. Webology. 2021;18(1):371-88. doi: 10.1177/21582440221145157.
28. Sahu RR, Parabhoi L. Bibliometric study of library and information science journal articles during 2014-2018: LIS research trends in India. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol. 2020;40(6):390-5. doi: 10.14429/djlit.40.06.15631.
29. Li P, Yang G, Wang C. Visual topical analysis of library and information science. Scientometrics. 2019;121(3):1753-91. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03239-0.
30. Islam MS, Islam MN, Mondal M. Research trends in library and information science in Bangladesh: An analytical study. JISTaP. 2018;6(2):36-45. doi: 10.1633/JISTaP.2018.6.2.3.
31. Shukla A, Maurya SK. Research performance of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries in library and information science: A scientometric analysis. Collnet J Scientometrics Inf Manage. 2018;12(1):73-81. doi: 10.1080/09737766.2017.1354478.
32. Chang Y-W, Huang M-H. A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2012;63(1):22-33. doi: 10.1002/asi.21649.
33. Naseer MM, Mahmood K. Use of bibliometrics in LIS research. Libres. 2009;19(2):1-11. doi: 10.32655/LIBRES.2009.2.4.
34. Naseer MM, Mahmood K. LIS research in Pakistan: an analysis of Pakistan Library and Information Science Journal 1998-2007. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal. 2009;40(3):10-20. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/275.
35. Lazar N, Chithra K. Comprehensive bibliometric mapping of publication trends in the development of Building Sustainability Assessment Systems. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021;23(4):4899-923. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00796-w.
36. Zhong M, Lin M. Bibliometric analysis for economy in COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon. 2022;8:e10757. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10757.
37. Hjørland B. Library and Information Science (LIS), Part 1. Knowl Organ. 2018;45(3):232-54. doi: 10.5771/0943-7444-2018-3-232.
38. Hjørland B. Library and Information Science (LIS), Part 2. Knowl Organ. 2018;45(4):319-38. doi: 10.5771/0943-7444-2018-4-319.
39. Putri SSM, Fuad A, Maula AW. A bibliometric analysis of PubMed literature on coronavirus: All time period. BIO Web Conf. 2020;28:01001. doi: 10.1051/bioconf/20202801001.
40. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr. 2017;11(4):959-75. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.
41. Camprubí R, Coromina L. Content analysis in tourism research. Tour Manag Perspect. 2016;18:134-40. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2016.03.002.
42. Salton G, Wong A, Yang CS. A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM. 1975;18(11):613-20. doi: 10.1145/361219.361220.
43. Bhattacherjee A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Q. 2001;25(3):351-70. doi: 10.2307/3250921.
44. Chin WW, Marcolin BL, Newsted PR. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf Syst Res. 2003;14(2):189-217. doi: 10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018.
45. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22(2):63-75. doi: 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201.
46. Chen C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57(3):359-77. doi: 10.1002/asi.20317.
47. Philip Chen CL, Zhang C-Y. Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Inf Sci. 2014;275:314-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.01.015.
48. Vidal G, Latorre JI, Rico E, Kitaev A. Entanglement in Quantum Critical Phenomena. Phys Rev Lett. 2003;90(22):2279021-4. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.227902.
49. Eisert J, Cramer M, Plenio MB. Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy. Rev Mod Phys. 2010;82(1):277-306. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.277.
50. Featherman MS, Pavlou PA. Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Int J Hum Comput. 2003;59(4):451-74. doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3.
51. Rada R, Mili H, Bicknell E, Blettner M. Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst. 1989;19(1):17-30. doi: 10.1109/21.24528.
52. Khan I. A scientometric analysis of DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology (2010-2014). Libr Hi Tech News. 2016;33(7):8-12. doi: 10.1108/LHTN-03-2016-0014.
53. Juznic P, Urbanija J. Developing research skills in library and information science studies. Libr Manag. 2003;24(6/7):324-31. doi: 10.1108/01435120310486048.
54. Middleton A. An attempt to quantify the quality of student bibliographies. IJLIS. 2005;6(1):7-18. doi: 10.1108/14678040510588553.
55. Daraio C, Bonaccorsi A, Simar L. Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach. Eur J Oper Res. 2015;244:918-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.02.005.
56. Lin W-C, Chen C. Novel world university rankings combining academic, environmental, and resource indicators. Sustainability. 2021;13(24):13873. doi: 10.3390/su132413873.
57. Saracevic T. Information science: Origin, evolution and relations. In: Vakkari P, Cronin B, editors. Conceptions of Library and Information Science. New York: Taylor Graham; 1992. p. 5-27.
58. Wilson P. Bibliographical R&D. In: Machlup F, Mansfield U, editors. The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages. New York: Wiley; 1983. p. 389-97.
59. Garfield E, Sher IH. KeyWords Plus™—algorithmic derivative indexing. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 1993;44(5):298-9. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199306)44:5<298::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-A.
60. Tan J, Fu HZ, Ho YS. A bibliometric analysis of research on proteomics in Science Citation Index Expanded. Scientometrics. 2014;98(2):1473-90. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1125-2.
61. Tripathi M, Jeevan VKJ, Babbar P, Mahemei LK. Library and information science research in BRICS countries. Inf Learn Sci. 2018;119(3-4):183-202. doi: 10.1108/ILS-10-2017-0101.
62. Hodonu-Wusu JO, Lazarus GN. Major trends in lis research: A bibliometric analysis. Libr Philos Pract. 2018:1873. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1873.
63. Chang Y-W, Huang M-H, Lin C-W. Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics. 2015;105(3):2071-87. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1762-8.
64. Sa MK, Dora M. Research productivity and research trends in the library and information science subject: A study with reference to SCOPUS. Libr Philos Pract. 2019:2661. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228203399.pdf.
65. Gupta N, Chakravarty R. Deciphering the status of library and information science research in BRICS nations: A research visualization approach. J Libr Adm. 2022;62(3):404-18. doi: 10.1080/01930826.2022.2043695.
66. Jokić M. Productivity, visibility, authorship, and collaboration in library and information science journals: Central and Eastern European authors. Scientometrics. 2020;122(2):1189-219. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03308-4.
67. Huang Y, Ao XL, Ho YS. Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate pentachlorophenol research. Scientometrics. 2008;75(1):67-80. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1849-y.
68. Zhang J, Yu Q, Zheng F, Long C, Lu Z, Duan Z. Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2016;67(4):967-72. doi: 10.1002/asi.23437.
69. Sedighi M. Altmetrics analysis of selected articles in the field of social sciences. Glob Knowl Mem Commun. 2023;72(4-5):452-63. doi: 10.1108/GKMC-07-2021-0124.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pornnisa Wattanasiri, Paiboon Manorom, Wirapong Chansanam (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
