Premium
Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012
Author(s) -
Walters William H.,
Wilder Esther Isabelle
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of the association for information science and technology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.903
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 2330-1643
pISSN - 2330-1635
DOI - 10.1002/asi.23448
Subject(s) - productivity , library science , reputation , spillover effect , competition (biology) , discipline , information science , distribution (mathematics) , political science , sociology , business , computer science , social science , economics , mathematics , ecology , mathematical analysis , biology , macroeconomics , microeconomics
We investigate the contributions of particular disciplines, countries, and academic departments to the literature of library and information science ( LIS ) using data for the articles published in 31 journals from 2007 to 2012. In particular, we examine the contributions of authors outside the U nited S tates, the U nited K ingdom, and C anada; faculty in departments other than LIS ; and practicing librarians. Worldwide, faculty in LIS departments account for 31% of the journal literature; librarians, 23%; computer science faculty, 10%; and management faculty, 10%. The top contributing nations are the U nited S tates, the U nited K ingdom, S pain, C hina, C anada, and T aiwan. Within the U nited S tates and the United Kingdom, the current productivity of LIS departments is correlated with past productivity and with other measures of reputation and performance. More generally, the distribution of contributions is highly skewed. In the U nited S tates, five departments account for 27% of the articles contributed by LIS faculty; in the U nited K ingdom, four departments account for nearly two‐thirds of the articles. This skewed distribution reinforces the possibility that high‐status departments may gain a permanent advantage in the competition for students, faculty, journal space, and research funding. At the same time, concentrations of research‐active faculty in particular departments may generate beneficial spillover effects.