Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis of the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of top ranked library and information science schools in China and the United States

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of researchers from the top-ranked library and information science (LIS) schools in China and the United States using Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus data. In particular, this study investigates the monetary reward policies of the Chinese LIS schools that might influence their researchers’ publishing activities. The results show that most of the top-ranked LIS schools in China offer monetary rewards to their faculty to publish in journals indexed in WoS as first authors. In addition, the findings indicate that the number of WoS papers by researchers working in Chinese LIS schools has increased rapidly and the ratio of this number to that of such papers by their US counterparts has been rising over the past decade. However, we observe no such rising trend in papers that are indexed only in Scopus. Although the Chinese LIS schools have a higher average annual growth rate of WoS publications than US LIS schools, they still lag considerably behind their US counterparts in publication quality, as measured by citations. We also find that Chinese LIS researchers are less likely to be supporting authors on their international collaborative publications than their US counterparts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. (2005). Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics, 63(3), 567–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adkins, D., & Budd, J. (2006). Scholarly productivity of US LIS faculty. Library & Information Science Research, 28(3), 374–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, W., & Wu, H. (2016). Salary in the Ivory Tower: The influencing mechanism of university salary in China. Peking University Education Review, 14(2), 113–132. (191).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Gomez, I., Fernandez, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., & Mendez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2), 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M. (2000). Scholarly productivity of US LIS faculty: An update. The Library Quarterly, 70(2), 230–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M. (2015). Productivity of US LIS and ischool faculty. Library & Information Science Research, 37(4), 290–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M., & Seavey, C. A. (1996). Productivity of US library and information science faculty: The Hayes study revisited. The Library Quarterly, 66(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, C., Li, N., Li, X., & Liu, L. (2013). Reforming China’s S&T system. Science, 341(6145), 460–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, C. M., & Wolfram, D. (1991). Α survey of the growth of Canadian research in information science. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 16(1), 12–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyranoski, D. (2004). China increases share of global scientific publications. Nature, 431, 116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Centre. (2017). China university subject ranking. Retrieved January 14, 2019 from http://www.chinadegrees.cn/xwyyjsjyxx/xkpgjg/2016phden/index.shtml.

  • Hayes, R. M. (1983). Citation statistics as a measure of faculty research productivity. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 23(3), 151–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, T., & Wang, W. (2006). Library and information science research in China: An international perspective. The International Information & Library Review, 38(4), 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307-0919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horri, A. (2004). Bibliometric overview of library and information science research productivity in Iran. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvistendahl, M. (2013). China’s publication bazaar. Science, 342(6162), 1035–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J. (2009). Assessing the impact of science funding. Science, 324(5932), 1273–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J., & Bertuzzi, S. (2011). Measuring the results of science investments. Science, 331(6018), 678–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thewall, M. (2009). Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 434–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78(1), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2014). The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 606–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Li, Y. (2015). Patterns and evolution of coauthorship in China’s humanities and social sciences. Scientometrics, 102(3), 1997–2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Hu, G., Tang, L., & Wang, Y. (2015). China’s global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013). Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 555–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzari, L. (2013). Library and information science journal prestige as assessed by library and information science faculty. The Library Quarterly, 83(1), 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, J. (2008). Fifty years of UK research in information science. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Spurgin, K. M. (2005). Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(12), 1314–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2009). Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2499–2508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mine, S., Ueda, S., & Miwa, M. (2006). Library and information science educators in Japan: Academic qualifications and research productivity. Library and Information Science, 55, 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, B. (2010). Assessing Asian scholarly research in library and information science: A quantitative view as reflected in Web of Knowledge. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(1), 90–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olmeda-Gomez, C., & de Moya-Anegon, F. (2016). Publishing trends in library and information sciences across European countries and institutions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(1), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, J. C. R., Fischer, A. L., & Escuder, M. M. L. (2000). Driving factors of high performance in Brazilian management sciences for the 1981–1995 period. Scientometrics, 49(2), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N. (2017). A close look at China’s rise. Nature, 545(7655), S39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan, P., & Chandrakar, R. (2011). Indian LIS literature in international journals with specific reference to SSCI database: A bibliometric study. Library Philosophy and Practice, 657, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, J. (2015). Safeguarding research integrity in China. National Science Review, 2(1), 122–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 486–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapa, R. (2007). International contribution to library and information science in Poland: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 71(3), 473–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010). Follow the money. Nature, 468(7324), 627–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira Da Silva, J. A. (2017). Does China need to rethink its metrics-and citation-based research rewards policies? Scientometrics, 112(3), 1853–1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2019). Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(8), 968–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2016). National, disciplinary and temporal variations in the extent to which articles with more authors have more impact: Evidence from a geometric field normalised citation indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. News & World Report. (2018). Best library and lnformation studies programs. Retrieved January 14, 2019 from https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-library-information-science-programs/library-information-science-rankings.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. (2011). The development of China’s scholarly publications in library and information science, 1979–2009: An analysis of ISI literature. Library Management, 32(6/7), 435–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. S., Boell, S. K., Kennan, M. A., & Willard, P. (2011). Publications of Australian LIS academics in database. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 42(3), 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, D. (2012). An analysis of Canadian contributions to the information science research literature: 1989–2008. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 36(1), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolston, C. (2018). Satisfaction in science. Nature, 562(7728), 611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, X., Zhang, F., & Li, J. (2015). Library and information science research in China—a survey based analysis of 10 LIS educational institutes. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 330–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K., & Lee, J. (2012). Analysis of publication patterns in Korean library and information science research. Scientometrics, 93(2), 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazit, N., & Zainab, A. N. (2007). Publication productivity of Malaysian authors and institutions in LIS. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 12(2), 35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2009). Is China also becoming a giant in social sciences? Scientometrics, 79(3), 593–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71704077). We would like to thank Jianjun Sun, Lei Pei, Yun Shi, Jiang Li, Huan Xie at Nanjing University, Hui Yan at Renmin University of China, and Zhenjia Fan at Nankai University for the policy resource collection. Also, we are grateful to Ronald Rousseau at University of Antwerp, Fred Y. Ye at Nanjing University, and the reviewers for very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Management, Nanjing University, NO. 163 Xianlin Road, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, China

    Zhenyue Zhao, Xuelian Pan & Weina Hua

Authors
  1. Zhenyue Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuelian Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weina Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuelian Pan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Z., Pan, X. & Hua, W. Comparative analysis of the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of top ranked library and information science schools in China and the United States. Scientometrics 126, 931–950 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03796-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03796-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation