From the bibliometric point of view, little is known about the development and status of library and information science (LIS) in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. Since these countries represent a part of the European Research Area in which the LIS field plays an important role, we aim to investigate the paradigm of their scientific communication. The research sample consists of papers (n = 3301) from authors with addresses from at least one of the 15 CEE countries (11 EU: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, and 4 EU potential candidate countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia) published in 160 LIS journals indexed in Scopus in the period 1996–2017. Analyses of productivity, citations, trends in authorship over time, and collaboration were made for the LIS field full sample and five LIS subfields: communication, computer science, information science, library science, and scientometrics. Additionally, we aimed to investigate scientific communication pattern between domestic (CEE) journals, international (non-CEE) journals and the journal Scientometrics. Our results show interesting data spanning 21 years including the transition period of the CEE countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Aharony, N. (2012). Library and information science research areas: A content analysis of articles from the top 10 journals 2007–2008. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,44(1), 27–35.
Bharvi, D., Garg, K. C., & Bali, A. (2003). Scientometrics of the international journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics,56(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021950607895.
Bottle, R. T., & Efthimiadis, E. N. (1984). Library and information science literature: Authorship and growth patterns. Journal of Information Science,9(3), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158400900304.
Chang, Y.-W. (2015). Librarians’ contribution to open access journal publishing in library and information science from the perspective of authorship. Journal of Academic Librarianship,41(5), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.006.
Chang, Y.-W. (2018). Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors. Scientometrics,116(3), 1589–1613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2822-7.
Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999). Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation,55(4), 402–408.
Davarpanah, M. R., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of international LIS journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics,77(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1803-z.
de Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernández, F., González-Molina, A., et al. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics,73(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1681-4.
Erfanmanesh, M., & Hosseini, E. (2015). 10 years of the International Journal of Information Science and Management: A scientometric and social network analysis study. International Journal of Information Science and Management,13(1), 1–20.
Fiala, D., & Willett, P. (2015). Computer science in Eastern Europe 1989–2014: A bibliometric study. Aslib Journal of Information Management,67(5), 526–541.
He, S., & Spink, A. (2002). A comparison of foreign authorship distribution in JASIST and the journal of documentation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(11), 953–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10131.
Hoogendoorn, G. (2008). Scopus: The continuing development of an abstract and citation database. The Serials Librarian,55, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260801970899.
Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2008). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in scientometrics. Scientometrics,75(2), 189–202.
Juradja, S., Kozubek, S., Munich, D., & Skoda, S. (2017). Scientific publication performance in post-communist countries: Still lagging far behind. Scientometrics,112(1), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2389-8.
Koehler, W. (2001). Information science as “Little Science”: The implications of a bibliometric analysis of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Scientometrics,51(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010516712215.
Kozak, M., Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). How have the Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric study. Scientometrics,102(2), 1101–1117.
Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2012). A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science’s first hundred years. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(5), 997–1016.
Lazić, N., Jokić, M., & Mateljan, S. (2017). Reliability of Scopus subject classification of journals and its impact on bibliometric research. In 9th Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries international conference (QQML 2017).
Levitt, J. M. (2015). What is the optimal number of researchers for social science research? Scientometrics,102(1), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1441-1.
Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Long term productivity and collaboration in information science. Scientometrics,108(3), 1103–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2061-8.
Leydesdorff, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Guerrero-Bote, V. P. (2010). Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data: A comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of the ISI. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(2), 352–369.
Liu, J. (2003). A bibliometric study: Author productivity and co-authorship features of JASIST 2001–2002. Mississippi Libraries,67(4), 110–112.
Luukkonen, T., & Nedeva, M. (2010). Towards understanding integration in research and research policy. Research Policy,39(5), 674–686.
Makkonen, T., & Mitze, T. (2016). Scientific collaboration between ‘old’ and ‘new’ member states: Did joining the European Union make a difference? Scientometrics,106(3), 1193–1215.
Mali, F. (2010). Policy issues of the international productivity and visibility of the social sciences in central and Eastern European countries [Problemi javnih politika prema medunarodnoj produktivnosti i vidljivosti društvenih znanosti u zemljama Srednje i Istočne Evrope]. Sociologija i prostor,48(3), 415–435.
Merigó, J. M., Pedrycz, W., Weber, R., & de la Sotta, C. (2018). Fifty years of Information Sciences: A bibliometric overview. Information Sciences,432, 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.11.054.
Naqvi, S. H. (2005). Journal of documentation: A bibliometric study. International Information Communication & Education,24(1), 53–56.
Olmeda-Gómez, C., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2016). Publishing trends in library and information sciences across European Countries and Institutions. Journal of Academic Librarianship,42(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.10.005.
Oppenheim, C. (2007). Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(2), 297–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20460.
Pajić, D. (2015). Globalization of the social sciences in Eastern Europe: Genuine breakthrough or a slippery slope of the research evaluation practice? Scientometrics,102(3), 2131–2150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1510-5.
Rey-Rocha, J., & Martín-Sempere, M. J. (2004). Patterns of the foreign contributions in some domestic vs. international journals on Earth Sciences. Scientometrics,59(1), 95–115.
Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Katz, J. S. (2018). The power law relationship between citation impact and multi-authorship patterns in articles in Information Science & Library Science journals. Scientometrics,114(3), 919–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2612-7.
Sapa, R. (2007). International contribution to library and information science in Poland: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics,71(3), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1675-2.
Schubert, A. (2002). The web of scientometrics: A statistical overview of the first 50 volumes of the journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics,53(1), 3–20.
Sin, S.-C. J. (2011). International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(9), 1770–1783. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21572.
Sivertsen, G. (2016). Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics,107(2), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1845-1.
Steinerová, J. (2003). Information science research agenda in Slovakia: History and emerging vision. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,54(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10157.
Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6, 33–38.
Suresh Kumar, P. K. (2017). Author productivity and the application of Lotka’s law in LIS publications. Annals of Library and Information Studies,64(4), 234–241.
Thavamani, K. (2014). Authorship patterns and collaborative research in Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 1996–2012. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2014(1), 1177.
Uzun, A. (2002). Library and information science research in developing countries and Eastern European countries: A brief bibliometric perspective. International Information & Library Review,34, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/iilr.2002.0182.
Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2016). Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,67(6), 1487–1506. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23448.
Waltman, L., Yan, E., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics,89(1), 301–314.
Wang, L. (2018). Twinning data science with information science in schools of library and information science. Journal of Documentation,74(6), 1243–1257.
Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics,10(2), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003.
Zins, C. (2007). Conceptions of information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(3), 335–350.
This work has been supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the Project IP-09-2014-9351.
Appendix 1: Description of data preparing process for the project database
If the obtained dataset was used as the sample for bibliometric analysis, without any additional checks and cleaning, the results of the analysis would certainly be different. First, Scopus, as well as WoS, provide a classification system at the level of journals, and both allow journals to have multidisciplinary classifications (Wang and Waltman 2016). Second, there is the problem of the diversity of classification systems of science, specifically the social sciences. By comparing Scopus ASJC (All Science Journal Classification) list of Social Sciences with the modified OECD Frascati Field of Science (FOS) Social Sciences (https://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf) revealed significant differences. In the case of Scopus, these differences are related to the involvement of several fields of the humanities and some fields dominated by issues of technology and engineering, which, due to differences in scientific communication, could have a significant impact on the results. Within the obtained sample, an example of a drastic impact on our results in social sciences analysis was the finding of inclusion journals and papers that deal almost exclusively with the issues of natural sciences or biomedicine (Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, etc.). By checking each paper, we have excluded the possibility that such papers that dealt with the issues of natural sciences or biomedicine, were misclassified as to social sciences. Papers published in such journals represented a share of 2%, but they accounted for 36% of the total number of citations (Lazić et al. 2017). Additionally, almost all of those papers were multi-authored, with more than n authors per paper, which is uncommon in social sciences. This confirms Wang’s and Waltman’s (2016) thesis that journal classification systems play an essential role in the accuracy of bibliometric analyses. An additional reason to check the reliability of the obtained search results is that Scopus has an unreliable classification of documents per document type, i.e., article or review. Moreover, Scopus sometimes classifies documents with one or two pages, without references or abstract, in the document type category “article or review”. Also, conference proceedings are sometimes classified as peer review journals under the category source type “journal”.
To solve the problem with sample unreliability, we have chosen an expert-based approach. Namely, the project subject experts in each social science fields (sociology, political science, psychology, educational science, law, economics and library and information science) examined each of the 4896 journals that were initially obtained from Scopus. Subject experts classified journals based on their journal knowledge and journal title (usually, journal titles are indicative). Questionable journals which could not be classified in specific fields were analyzed in detail through journal or publisher webpage, and decision were subjected to a consensus. A thorough expert checks-up yielded in a final dataset containing 2724 journals with 58,512 bibliographic records categorized in social sciences ten subject categories according to modified OECD Frascati Fields of Science (FOS): economics and business, educational science, information and library science, law, political science, psychology, sociology, and three multidisciplinary fields (social sciences, social sciences and humanities, and social sciences and other fields). The modified OECD classification was applied due to the fact that it is widely used by CEE countries.
Appendix 2: List of journals by five LIS subfields
|LIS subfield||Journal title||Number of papers|
|Communication||Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies||2|
|Chinese Journal of Communication||1|
|Comunicacion y Sociedad||1|
|Emerging Communication: Studies in New Technologies and Practices in Communication||1|
|Feminist Media Studies||5|
|Global Media Journal||1|
|IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication||1|
|International Communication Gazette||2|
|International Journal of Advanced Media and Communication||4|
|International Journal of Communication||25|
|International Journal of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting||11|
|International Journal of Web Based Communities||7|
|JMM International Journal on Media Management||1|
|Journal of Communication||2|
|Journal of Communication Management||4|
|Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly||1|
|Media International Australia||2|
|New Review of Film and Television Studies||4|
|Review of Communication||1|
|Computer science||IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology||49|
|Industrial Management and Data Systems||61|
|Information Systems Journal||1|
|Journal of Cheminformatics||43|
|Journal of Computer Information Systems||16|
|Journal of Organizational and End User Computing||1|
|Journal of Strategic Information Systems||3|
|Progress in Informatics||3|
|Information science||Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives||10|
|Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science||1|
|Computers and the Humanities||3|
|Data and Knowledge Engineering||8|
|European Science Editing||3|
|Global Media and Communication||2|
|IEEE Transactions on Information Theory||79|
|IFIP International Federation for Information Processing||92|
|Information and Management||5|
|Information Processing and Management||34|
|Information-Wissenschaft und Praxis||4|
|Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management||16|
|International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems||9|
|International Journal of Information and Management Sciences||6|
|International Journal of Information Management||28|
|International Journal of Information Processing and Management||1|
|International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design||2|
|International Journal of Information Technology and Management||1|
|International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies||3|
|International Journal of Organizational Diversity||3|
|International Journal of the Inclusive Museum||7|
|Journal of Digital Information||2|
|Journal of Digital Information Management||14|
|Journal of Documentation||28|
|Journal of Global Information Management||3|
|Journal of Information and Knowledge Management||8|
|Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences||135|
|Journal of Information Science||19|
|Journal of Information Science and Engineering||5|
|Journal of Information Technology||1|
|Journal of Information Technology Education:Research||1|
|Journal of Knowledge Management||14|
|Journal of Network and Systems Management||7|
|Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology||4|
|Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology||18|
|Knowledge and Process Management||2|
|Knowledge Management and E-Learning||6|
|Knowledge Management Research and Practice||15|
|Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences||116|
|Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science||8|
|Museum Management and Curatorship||5|
|New Media and Society||10|
|New Review of Information Networking||3|
|Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy||1|
|Online Information Review||12|
|Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting||1|
|Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting||1|
|Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM||63|
|Profesional de la Informacion||5|
|Publishing Research Quarterly||10|
|Science and Technology Studies||1|
|Library science||Archival Science||3|
|Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester||1|
|Cataloging and Classification Quarterly||22|
|European Journal of Communication||26|
|Evidence Based Library and Information Practice||1|
|Information Technology and Libraries||4|
|Interlending and Document Supply||4|
|International Information and Library Review||6|
|International Journal of Lexicography||20|
|International Journal of the Book||4|
|International Journal on Digital Libraries||8|
|Journal of Academic Librarianship||11|
|Journal of Archival Organization||1|
|Journal of Classification||10|
|Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve||2|
|Journal of Librarianship and Information Science||9|
|Journal of the Medical Library Association||2|
|Journal of the Society of Archivists||1|
|Library and Information Science Research||6|
|Library Collections, Acquisition and Technical Services||3|
|Library Hi Tech||11|
|Library Hi Tech News||2|
|Library Leadership and Management||1|
|Library Philosophy and Practice||2|
|Library Resources and Technical Services||2|
|New Library World||29|
|OCLC Systems and Services||4|
|Reference and User Services Quarterly||1|
|Science and Technology Libraries||1|
|Slavic and East European Information Resources||19|
|Vjesnik Bibliotekara Hrvatske||273|
|Scientometrics||Journal of Informetrics||43|
About this article
Cite this article
Jokić, M. Productivity, visibility, authorship, and collaboration in library and information science journals: Central and Eastern European authors. Scientometrics 122, 1189–1219 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03308-4
- Citation analysis
- Library and information science
- Central and East European countries