A. Abrizah

LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus

The study compares the coverage, ranking, impact and subject categorization of Library and Information Science journals, specifically, 79 titles based on data from Web of Science (WoS) and 128 titles from Scopus. Comparisons were made based on prestige factor scores reported in 2010 Journal Citation Reports and SCImago Journal Rank 2010 and noting the change in ranking when the differences are calculated. The rank normalized impact factor and the Library of Congress Classification System were used to compare impact rankings and subject categorization. There was high degree of similarity in rank normalized impact factor of titles in both WoS and Scopus databases. The searches found 162 journals, with 45 journals appearing in both databases. The rankings obtained for normalized impact scores confirm higher impact scores for titles covered in Scopus because of its larger coverage of titles. There was mismatch of subject categorization among 34 journal titles in both databases and 22 of the titles were not classified under Z subject headings in the Library of Congress catalogue. The results revealed the changes in journal title rankings when normalized, and the categorization of some journal titles in these databases might be incorrect.

Sixty-four years of informetrics research: productivity, impact and collaboration

This paper analyses the information science research field of informetrics to identify publication strategies that have been important for its successful researchers. The study uses a micro-analysis of informetrics researchers from 5,417 informetrics papers published in 7 core informetrics journals during 1948–2012. The most productive informetrics researchers were analysed in terms of productivity, citation impact, and co-authorship. The 30 most productive informetrics researchers of all time span several generations and seem to be usually the primary authors of their research, highly collaborative, affiliated with one institution at a time, and often affiliated with a few core European centres. Their research usually has a high total citation impact but not the highest citation impact per paper. Perhaps surprisingly, the US does not seem to be good at producing highly productive researchers but is successful at producing high impact researchers. Although there are exceptions to all of the patterns found, researchers wishing to have the best chance of being part of the next generation of highly productive informetricians may wish to emulate some of these characteristics.

Academic librarians and their social media presence: a story of motivations and deterrents

Despite the widespread use of social media by students and their increased use in higher education, very little empirical evidence is available concerning the prevalence of use among academic librarians. The objectives of this study are: a) to identify the prevalence of social media used in Malaysian academic libraries; b) to examine the reasons for creating a social media presence among academic libraries; and c) to understand the obstacles to social media participation among academic librarians. Data were gathered via three focus study groups with 22 librarians from three research-intensive universities in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The results indicated that at least four types of social media are deployed in libraries to reach out to the users: blogs, multimedia sharing sites, social bookmarking and social networking sites (SNS). Facebook, Blog, Delicious, YouTube and Twitter are the tools mainly adopted by these libraries. The motives for librarians to use social media were to promote library services, manage organizational knowledge and receiving instant feedback from users. Workflow obstacles, technology obstacles, organizational obstacles and personal obstacles deter librarians from participating in social media. This study provides experiential evidence that Malaysian academic librarians are not very serious in engaging themselves with social media. Library managements need to provide support to mobilize librarians into a more active and participatory role in creating social media presence.

Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information

This article presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project started in 2015. The project is a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) to ascertain their current and changing habits with regard to information searching, use, sharing, and publication. The study recruited 116 researchers from seven countries (UK, USA, China, France, Malaysia, Poland, and Spain) and performed in‐depth interviews by telephone, Skype, or face‐to‐face to discover behaviours and opinions. This paper reports on findings regarding discovery and access to scholarly information. Findings confirm the universal popularity of Google/Google Scholar. Library platforms and web‐scale discovery services are largely unmentioned and unnoticed by this user community, although many ECRs pass through them unknowingly on the way to authenticated use of their other preferred sources, such as Web of Science. ECRs are conscious of the benefits of open access in delivering free access to papers. Social media are widely used as a source of discovering scholarly information. ResearchGate is popular and on the rise in all countries surveyed. Smartphones have become a regularly used platform on which to perform quick and occasional searches for scholarly information but are only rarely used for reading full text.

What inhibits authors to self-archive in Open Access repositories? A Malaysian case

This paper reports on a survey carried out on academics in five Malaysian research-intensive universities, investigating their readiness to self archive in Open Access institutional repositories. The study revolves around the following issues: (a) academics’ awareness of self archiving in an institutional repository within their institution; (b) their perceptions about self archiving scientific information into institutional repositories; (c) their perceptions regarding obligations to self archive in institutional repositories; and (d) the possible reasons that inhibit them in contributing to institutional repositories. The answers were identified from 72 academics through a web-based survey. The study reveals that the majority of academics in this study have no or little knowledge of, or experience with, institutional repositories and are unfamiliar with self-archiving opportunities. However most of them endorse the principle of Open Access and are willing to contribute content to an institutional repository if an opportunity arises or if mandated by their funding institutions. Those who agree to self archiving see it to be beneficial in the author’s life as it enhances visibility and recognition of the author’s work, but the main problem encountered is the fact that researchers feel it is time consuming. The major barrier to self archiving is fear of plagiarism. In light of these results, there is a need to create more awareness and to educate authors on the importance of self archiving. Ensuring free electronic access to public-funded research lies with the funding institutions, especially universities, which should set up appropriate repository infrastructures, advocate the public good and ethical implications of open access and even mandate self-archiving of research they fund.

Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? An investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia

Citation indicators are increasingly used in book‐based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non‐Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961–2012 in 1 non‐Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non‐Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly‐cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.

Early career researchers: Scholarly behaviour and the prospect of change

Early career researchers (ECRs) are of great interest because they are the new (and biggest) wave of researchers. They merit long and detailed investigation, and towards this end, this overarching paper provides a summary of the first‐year findings of a 3‐year, longitudinal study of 116 science and social science ECRs who have published nearly 1,200 papers and come from 7 countries and 81 universities. ECRs were interviewed in their own languages face‐to‐face, by Skype, or telephone. The study focused on the attitudes and behaviours of ECRs with respect to scholarly communications and the extent to which they are adopting new and disruptive technologies, such as social media, online communities, and Open Science. The main findings include: publishing in high‐impact factor journals is the only reputational game in town; online scholarly communities, and ResearchGate in particular, are gaining ground; social media are beginning to have an impact, especially in the dissemination arena; outreach activities have become more important; libraries are becoming increasingly invisible to ECRs; Open Science is not gaining traction; and more transformational ideas are being expressed, especially in the US and UK.

An identification of a model for digital library critical success factors

Purpose – A significant amount of digital repository research and development activity is taking place worldwide, which calls for the investigation of issues identified as critical to the development, management and sustainability of these repositories. The purpose of this paper is to establish a comprehensive set of critical success factors (CSFs) that would enable successful digital libraries implementation.Design/methodology/approach – The design of this study is exploratory in nature due to lack of previous research about CSFs in digital library projects. The paper builds the research framework to find CSFs for digital libraries initiatives by collecting possible factors from literature on CSFs of information systems; and feedback from ten experts who have had experience in digital library research and development as well as implementation, through e‐mail interviews. Six dimensions in the enterprise architecture framework (namely motivation, resource, people, process, location and time) needed to crea...

Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices

This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in‐depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish.

Resource-sharing through an inter-institutional repository: Motivations and resistance of library and information science scholars

– The purpose of this paper is to be concerned with the motivations and resistance among an institutional repository (IR) stakeholder – the Library and Information Science (LIS) academicians – with respect to Green Road open access publishing in an inter-institutional repository. , – The answers were identified from 47 LIS faculty from three library schools in Malaysia who reported awareness of what an IR is and having had experience in contributing resources to digital repositories. Data were collected using survey and interviews. , – The results highlighted the LIS faculty on their motivation to share their intellectual profile, research and teaching resources in an inter-institutional repositories and why the reluctance in contributing. The study reveals that the major motivation to share resources for those practicing self-archiving is related to performance expectancy, social influence, visible and authoritative advantage, career benefit and quality work. The major resistance to share scholarly research output through self-archiving in institutional repositories for those practicing self-archiving is concern on plagiarism, time and effort, technical infrastructure, lack of self-efficacy and insularity. , – Knowing what conditions predict motivation and resistance to contribute to IRs would allow IR administrators to ensure greater and more effective participation in resource-sharing among LIS academic community. If this resistance is addressed aptly, IRs can be of real benefit to their teaching, scholarship, collaborations, and publishing and to the community that they serve. , – The first study that has explored the ways LIS academics respond to a situation where knowledge sharing in academe has now been made mandatory through an IR and what makes them resist to do so.