Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the characteristics of articles by high research performance authors in the field of library and information science (LIS) by comparing the articles by two control groups of highly cited authors and prolific authors. The comparison was conducted on the basis of the articles indexed by Web of Science between 2009 and 2013 and their citation counts as of August 2019. Research results suggested that both high research performance authors and highly cited authors produced a significantly higher percentage of coauthored articles than prolific authors did. Moreover, they published a higher percentage of international collaborative articles in Q1 journals. Most high research performance researchers conducted scientometric research, whereas most highly cited researchers worked in the domain of management and computer science expertise and published their research results in journals relevant to their field. Additionally, prolific researchers mostly preferred to publish articles in LIS journals, whereas highly cited researchers tended to publish more articles in non-LIS journals. Prolific authors did not adopt coauthorship to improve productivity but targeted non-Q1 journals with higher rates of acceptance. Academic age was not a determining factor for distinguishing research performance among all three groups of researchers. Each group of researchers comprised both junior and senior researchers.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarssen, L. W., Lortie, C. J., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Tregenza, T. (2009). Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behavior? PLoS ONE, 4(7), e6283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrizah, A., Noorhidawati, A., & Zainab, A. N. (2015). LIS journals categorization in the journal citation report: A stated preference study. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1083–1099.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbaritabar, A., Casnici, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2018). The conundrum of research productivity: A study on sociologists in Italy. Scientometrics, 114(3), 859–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albarran, P., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). References made and citations received by scientific articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asubiaro, T. (2019). How collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa: A bibliometric study of LIS research from 1996 to 2015. Scientometrics, 120(3), 1261–1287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avanesova, A. A., & Shamliyan, T. A. (2018). Comparative trends in research performance of the Russian universities. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2019–2052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, J., Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2016). Highly cited papers in library and information science (LIS): Authors, institutions, and network structures. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(12), 3095–3100.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. W. (2018a). Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1589–1613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. W. (2018b). Exploring the interdisciplinary characteristics of library and information science (LIS) from the perspective of interdisciplinary LIS authors. Library and Information Science Research, 40(2), 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. W. (2019). Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors? Scientometrics, 121(1), 81–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. W., Chen, D. Z., & Huang, M. H. (2020). Discovering types of research performance of scientists with significant contributions. Scientometrics, 124(2), 1529–1552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davarpanah, M. R., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of international LIS journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics, 77(1), 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhillon, S. K., Ibrahim, R., & Selamat, A. (2015). Factors associated with scholarly publication productivity among academic staff: Case of a Malaysian public university. Technology in Society, 42, 160–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1055–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-Gonzalez, P., & Santana-Jimenez, Y. (2019). Characterizing the highly cited articles: A large-scale bibliometric analysis of the top 1% most cited research. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 24(2), 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Souza, B., Kulkarni, S., & Cerejo, C. (2018). Authors’ perspectives on academic publishing: Initial observations from a largescale global survey. Science Editing, 5(1), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garg, K. C., Kumar, S., & Lal, K. (2006). Scientometric profile of Indian agricultural research as seen through Science Citation Index Expanded. Scientometrics, 68(1), 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (2000). Scientometrics of prolific and non-prolific authors in laser science and technology. Scientometrics, 49(3), 359–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorjizadeh, D., & Eftekhar, A. (2016). A scientometric analysis of scholarly publication in the fields of management, operations, economics, and business from Iran. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(4), 347–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haensly, P. J., Hodges, P. E., & Davenport, S. A. (2009). Acceptance rates and journal quality: An analysis of journals in economics and finance. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 2–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halim, Z., & Khan, S. (2019). A data science-based framework to categorize academic journals. Scientometrics, 119(1), 393–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, P., Shi, J., Li, X. Y., Wang, D. B., Shen, S., & Su, X. N. (2014). International collaboration in LIS: Global trends and networks at the country and institution level. Scientometrics, 98(1), 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., & Wilson, S. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76(1), 169–185.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. H., & Chang, Y. W. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. H., & Chang, Y. W. (2012). A comparative study of interdisciplinary changes between information science and library science. Scientometrics, 91(3), 789–803.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, A., Bielza, C., & Larrañaga, P. (2013). Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: A case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 95(2), 689–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanović, D., & Ho, Y. S. (2016). Highly cited articles in the information science and library science category in social science citation index: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(1), 36–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, H., Nong, B. J., Yang, L. J., Zong, S. H., Zhan, X. L., Wei, Q. J., & Xiao, Z. M. (2016). Assessing the evolution of scientific publications in orthopedics journals from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan: A 12-year survey of the literature. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-016-0404-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kademani, B. S., Sagar, A., & Bhanumurthy, K. (2011). Research and impact of materials science publications in India: 1999–2008. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 16(2), 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (1990). Age and scientific productivity. Differences between fields of learning. Higher Education, 19, 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. H. (2019). Predicting the research performance of early career scientists. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1481–1504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M. (2015). What is the optimal number of researchers for social science research? Scientometrics, 102(1), 213–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNally, G. P. (2010). Scholarly productivity, impact, and quality among academic psychologists at group of eight universities. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 204–215.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, B. (2009). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (2000–2007): A bibliometric study. IFLA Journal, 35(4), 341–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, T. Q., & Zhu, J. J. H. (2012). Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1789–1803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlin, M. S., Santos, A. A. P., Imasato, T., Borenstein, D., & Da Silva, S. (2017). The Brazilian scientific output published in journals: A study based on a large CV database. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 18–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I. (2005). Emerald authorship data, Lotka’s law and research productivity. Aslib Proceedings, 57(1), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle, P., Kandala, N. B., Barnard, K., & Waugh, N. (2013). Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: Analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Systematic Reviews, 2, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutledge, R. W., Karim, K. E., & Reinstein, A. (2011). What factors influence the number of coauthors in the published research of the most productive authors in accounting literature? A long-term study. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 14, 191–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagar, A., Kademani, B. S., Garg, R. G., & Kumar, V. (2010). Scientometric mapping of tsunami publications: A citation based study. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 15(1), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrom, U., & van den Besselaar, P. (2016). Quantity and/or quality? The importance of publishing many papers. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0166149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354, 6312–5239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soheili, F., Khasseh, A. A., & Mousavi-Chelak, A. (2017). The most influential researchers in information behaviour: An integrative view on influence indicators. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(2), 215–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sooryamoorthy, R. (2017). Do types of collaboration change citation? A scientometric analysis of social science publications in South Africa. Scientometrics, 111(1), 379–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1993). Age and the Nobel Prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28(3), 387–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbano, C., & Ardanuy, J. (2020). Cross-disciplinary collaboration versus coexistence in LIS serials: Analysis of authorship affiliations in four European countries. Scientometrics, 124(1), 575–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Lim, S. (2019). Research productivity of faculty at 30 leading marketing departments. Marketing Letters, 30(2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-019-09489-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., Singhvi, S., & Kleinert, S. (2015). Too much of a good thing? An observational study of prolific authors. PeerJ, 3, e1154. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (2006). Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Author impact versus journal impact. Scientometrics, 69(3), 499–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2015). Worldwide contributors to the literature of library and information science: Top authors, 2007–2012. Scientometrics, 103(1), 301–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, C. S., James, K., Burke, L. A., & Allen, R. S. (2012). What makes a “research star”? Factors influencing the research productivity of business faculty. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(6), 584–602.

    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 

  • Yu, T., Yu, G., Li, P. Y., & Wang, L. (2014). Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1233–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanotto, S. R., Haeffner, C., & Guimaraes, J. A. (2016). Unbalanced international collaboration affects adversely the usefulness of countries’ scientific output as well as their technological and social impact. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1789–1814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J. J., Koltz, M. T., Agarwal, N., Tempel, Z. J., Kanter, A. S., Okonkwo, D. O., & Hamilton, D. K. (2017). 100 most influential publications in scoliosis surgery. Spine, 42(5), 336–344.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Center for Research in Econometric Theory and Applications (Grant No. 109L900204) from The Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan, and by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan, under Grant No. 109-2634-F-002-045- and 107-2410-H-002-200

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yu-Wei Chang

  2. Center for Research in Econometric Theory and Applications, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yu-Wei Chang

Authors
  1. Yu-Wei Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu-Wei Chang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, YW. Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles. Scientometrics 126, 3373–3391 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03898-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03898-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation