A Bibliometric Analysis of the Chinese Librarianship: an ... · The Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal (CLIEJ) is a peer-reviewed open access e-journal. CLIEJ

Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 35. URL: www.iclc.us/cliej/cl35singh.pdf

16

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Chinese Librarianship: an International

Electronic Journal (2009-2012)

Har Singh

Panjab University, Chandigarh

India

[email protected]

ABSTRACT: This article analysed the various bibliometric components of the

articles published in the Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic

Journal between 2009 and 2012. Various quality aspects of the 55 articles

published in the period were studied. Also revealed are the quantitative growth

of articles by number and year, distribution of citations by number and year,

range of citations per article, authorship patterns, authorship productivity, most

prolific authors, and authors by country.

I. Introduction

Bibliometirics is a set of methods used to study or measure texts and information (Wikipedia,

2011). Citation analysis is one of the important and quite old branches of bibliometric study

(Mahapatra, 2000). Bibliometric study provides careful evaluation of periodical literature by

providing a complete picture of the core publications of any specific subject (Davarpanah &

Aslekia, 2008).

The Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal (CLIEJ) is a peer-reviewed

open access e-journal. CLIEJ was launched in 1996 and published biannually by the Internet

Chinese Librarians Club.

II. Literature Review

There have been few bibliometic studies conducted on individual journals. Some of the

relevant studies in the aforesaid direction are worthy of review.

Shokeen and Kaushik (2004) studied the Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, volume 7.

There are 61 articles with a total of 1,149 citations. Of the 61 articles, 19 (31%) were

contributed by three or more authors.

Hussain and Fatima (2011) evaluated the characteristics of the Chinese Librarianship: an

International Electronic Journal from 2006 to 2010 through a bibliometric analysis.

Jadhav, Khaparde, and Shelke (2011) studied the University News Journal and found 5,968

citations in articles published between 2004 and 2008. Books were the most cited document

type.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.webology.org/2011/v8n1/a86.html#6


17

Swain and Panda (2011) studied the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights from 2002 to

2010. They believed that JIPR could surely increase its impact factor in future.

Harith and Singh (2012) analysed the Indian Journal of International Law from 1962 to 2012

and revealed the characteristics and trends of the articles published in that journal.

III. Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to identify the characteristics of CLIEJ articles and

determine if there are changes over time. More specific objectives are as follows:

To find out the quantitative growth of articles and distribution of citations by number

and year under study

To find out the range and percentage of citations per article

To find out the degree of author collaboration

To examine the geographical affiliation of authors

IV. Research Methodology

The study analyses the various aspects of the Chinese Librarianship: an International

Electronic Journal (CLIEJ) from 2009 to 2012. A total of 903 citations from 55 articles

published during the stated period were collected from the CLIEJ website

(http://www.iclc.us/cliej/). MS Excel was used to organize, tabulate, and help analyse the

data for the study.

V. Findings and Analysis

1. Distribution of Articles by Year

Year Issue No. No. of Articles Articles by Year Percentage

2009 27 7 11 20.00

28 4

2010 29 6 13 23.64

30 7

2011 31 7 14 25.45

32 7

2012 33 8 17 30.90

34 9

Total 8 issues 55 55 100

Table 1. Distribution of Articles by Year

Table 1 shows a total of 55 articles published in the period under study. The highest number

of articles were published in the year 2012 (17, 30.9%), followed 2011 (14, 25.45%) and

2010 (13, 23.64%). The minimum number of articles were published in the year 2009 with 11

articles (20%). It shows a tendency of steady increase in the number of articles per year.

http://www.iclc.us/cliej/


18

Graph 1. Distribution of Articles by Year

2. Distribution of Citations by Year

Year Issue

No.

No. of

Articles

Articles

by Year

Citations Self-

Citations

Total Citations Percentage

2009 27 7 11 106 0 106 178 19.71

28 4 72 0 72

2010 29 6 13 104 0 104 212 23.48

30 7 106 2 108

2011 31 7 14 144 0 144 237 26.25

32 7 93 0 93

2012 33 8 17 106 2 108 276 30.56

34 9 168 0 168

Total 8 55 903 100

Table 2. Distribution of Citations by Year

Graph 2. Distribution of Citations by Year

Table 2 presents the distribution of citations per issue. The 55 articles contained a total of 903

citations and self-citations. The year 2012 had the most citations (276, 30.56%), followed by

the year 2011 (237, 26.25%). The year 2009 had the fewest citations (178, 19.71%). It shows

a tendency of steady increase in the number of citations per year.

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

7

4

6 7 7 7

8 9

Articles

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

7 4 6 7 7 7 8 9

106 72

104 106 144

93 106

168

0

0

0 2

0

0 2

0

self-citation

references

Articles


19

3. Range of Citations per Article

Citation Range Year No. of Articles Percentage

2009 2010 2011 2012

1-9 3 2 3 3 11 20.00

10-19 4 7 5 9 25 45.45

20-29 3 2 5 3 13 23.64

30-39 1 2 1 2 6 10.91

11 13 14 17 55 100

Table 3. Range of Citations per Article

Graph 3. Range of Citations per Article

Table 3 indicates the range and percentage of citations per article. A total of 25 articles

(45.45%) top the list with 10-19 citations, followed by 13 articles (23.64%) with 20-29, 11

articles (20%) with 1-9, and 6 articles (10.91%) with 30-39 citations.

4. Authorship Patterns

Authorship Pattern Years No. of Articles Percentage

2009 2010 2011 2012

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Single Authors 5 2 3 1 3 1 8 23 41.82

Two Authors 1 3 3 3 2 3 4 1 20 36.36

Three Authors 1 1 1 3 1 2 9 16.36

More than three authors 1 1 1 3 5.45

Total 7 4 6 7 7 7 8 9 55 100

Table 4. Authorship Patterns

Graph 4. Authorship Patterns

0

10

01-09' 10-19. 20-29 30-39

3 4 3 1 2 7

2 2 3 5 5 1 3

9 3 2

Range of Citations by Year

2009 2010 2011 2012

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

5 2 3 1 3 1

8 1

3 3 3

2 3

4

1 1

1 1 3

1 2 1 1 1

Single Authors Two Authors

Three Authors More than three authors


20

0

5

10

2009 2010 2011 2012

5 5 4

9

6 8

10 8

Single Authors (Ns) Multiple Authors (Nm)

Table 4 shows the authorship patterns of the articles published during the period of study. Of

the 55 articles, the largest number of articles had been published by single authors (23,

41.82%). This is followed by two authors (20, 36.36%), three authors (9, 16.36%), and more

than three authors (3, 5.45%).

5. Degree of Author Collaboration

Year Single Author (Ns) Multiple Author (Nm) Degree of collaboration (C)

2009 5 6 0.55

2010 5 8 0.62

2011 4 10 0.71

2012 9 8 0.47

Table 5. Degree of Author Collaboration

Graph 5. Degree of Author Collaboration

Table 5 shows the degree of author collaboration in the Chinese Librarianship: an

International Electronic Journal. It was calculated using Subramanian’s formula:

C = NM / (NM + NS)

Where C = degree of collaboration,

Nm=Number of multi-authored works,

Ns= Number of single-authored works.

It is found that the degree of author collaboration in the Chinese Librarianship ranged from

0.47 to 0.71 during the period under study. In comparison, Swain and Panda (2012) found the

degree of author collaboration in Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (2002-2010) to be

from 0.19 to 0.41. Therefore, the collaborative works are quite remarkably observed in the

Chinese Librarianship. In other words, multiple authors were dominating.

6. Subject Distribution

Subjects Years No. of Articles Percentage

2009 2010 2011 2012

Electronic Resources 4 3 0 1 8 14.55

Library Automation 0 0 0 1 1 1.82


21

Library and Internet 1 1 3 1 6 10.91

Library Professionals 3 1 0 0 4 7.27

Academic Libraries 0 2 2 2 6 10.91

Public Libraries 0 0 1 1 2 3.64

Special Libraries 1 2 0 0 3 5.45

Information Services 1 3 2 4 10 18.18

Others 1 1 6 7 15 27.27

Total 11 13 14 17 55 100.00

Table 6. Subject Distribution

Graph 6. Subject Distribution

Table 6 shows the distribution of subject areas of the articles. 10 articles (18.18%) are about

Information Services, 8 articles (14.55%) about Electronic Resources, 6 articles (10.91%)

each about Library and Internet and Academic Libraries, 1 article (1.82%) about Library

Automation, and 15 articles (27.27%) about other topics, such as citation analysis, etc.

7. Category of Authors

Rank Category of Authors No. of Authors Percentage

1 Librarian 27 25.47

2 Others 19 17.92

3 Assistant Professor 17 16.04

4 Assistant Librarian 15 14.15

5 Professor 12 11.32

6 Research Scholars 8 7.55

7 Associate Professor 5 4.72

8 Resource Officer 2 1.89

9 Deputy Librarian 1 0.94

106 100

Table 7. Category of Authors

4

0

1

3

0 0

1 1 1

3

0

1 1

2

0

2

3

1

0 0

3

0

2

1

0

2

6

1 1 1

0

2

1

0

4

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2009 2010 2011 2012


22

Graph 7. Category of Authors

Table 7 shows the distribution of authors in 9 main categories. Most of the authors are

identified as Librarians (27, 25.47%), followed by Others (19, 17.92%), Assistant Professor

(17, 16.04%), Assistant Librarian (15, 14.15%), Professor (12, 11.32%), Research Scholars

(8, 7.55%), Associate Professor (5, 4.72%), Resource Officer (2, 1.89%), and Deputy

Librarian (1, 0.94%).

8. Ranking of Authors by Article Contribution

Rank Authors No. of Articles Percentage

1 Dillip K. Swain 3 2.83

1 Khalid Mahmood 3 2.83

2 Akhtar Hussain 2 1.89

2 Bibhu Prasad Panda 2 1.89

2 Chanda Arya 2 1.89

2 Devendra Kumar 2 1.89

2 Ifijeh Goodluck 2 1.89

2 Munira Nasreen Ansari 2 1.89

2 Niran Adetoro 2 1.89

2 Nishat Fatima 2 1.89

2 Saima Qutab 2 1.89

2 Zahid Ashraf Wani 2 1.89

2 Zhixian Yi 2 1.89

3 Others authors that contributed 1 article 78 73.58

Total 106 100

Table 8. Ranking of Authors by Article Contribution

0

10

20

3027

19 17 15 12 8 5 2 1

Category of Authors


23

Graph 8. Ranking of Authors by Article Contribution

Table 8 shows the ranking of authors by article contribution. There are a total of 106 authors

for 55 articles during the period of study. Dillip K. Swain from India and Khalid Mahmood

from Pakistan have contributed 3 articles (2.83%) each. 11 others have contributed 2 articles

(1.89%) each. And 78 (73.58%) other authors have contributed 1 article each. The total

number of articles and the percentage as well for other authors who have contributed 1 article

in Table 8 are higher than the actual numbers because some articles have co-authors.

9. Distribution of Authors by Country

Rank Name of Country No. of Authors Percentage

1 India 39 36.80

2 Nigeria 33 31.13

3 Pakistan 16 15.09

4 USA 11 10.38

5 China 2 1.89

6 UAE 2 1.89

7 Botswana 1 0.94

8 CANADA 1 0.94

9 Iran 1 0.94

Total 106 100

Table 9. Distribution of Authors by Country

Graph 9. Distribution of Authors by Country

3 3

2 2 2 2 2

2 2

2 2

2

2

78

Dillip K. Swain Khalid Mahmood

Akhtar Hussain Bibhu Prasad Panda

Chanda Arya Devendra Kumar

Ifijeh Goodluck Munira Nasreen Ansari

Niran Adetoro Nishat Fatima

Saima Qutab Zahid Ashraf Wani

Zhixian Yi Others authors that contributed 1 Article

39

33

16 11

2 2 1 1 1

India Nigeria Pakistan USA China

UAE Botswana CANADA Iran


24

Table 9 shows the contribution of articles by country during the period under the study. Out

of 106 authors, 39 (36.80%) are from India, followed by Nigeria (33, 31.13%), Pakistan (16,

15.09%), and USA (11, 10.38%). China and United Arab Emirates have contributed 2 authors

each. And Botswana, Canada, and Iran have contributed one author each.

10. Distribution of Indian Authors by State

Rank Name of the State & Union Territory No. of Contributors Percentage

1 Jammu and Kashmir 7 17.95

2 Odisha 6 15.38

3 Uttarakhand 5 12.82

4 Tamil Nadu 5 12.82

5 Uttar Pradesh 5 12.82

6 Chandigarh 4 10.26

7 Delhi 2 5.13

8 Maharastra 2 5.13

9 Karnataka 2 5.13

10 Andhra Pradesh 1 2.56

39 100

Table 10. Distribution of Indian Authors by State

Graph 10. Distribution of Indian Authors by State

Table 10 shows the contribution of Indian Authors by state in the period under study. Out of

39 Indian authors, 7 (17.95%) are from Jammu and Kashmir, followed by Odisha (6,

15.38%), Uttarakhand (5, 12.82%), Uttar Pradesh (5, 12.82%), Tamil Nadu (5, 12.82%),

Chandigarh (4, 10.26%), Delhi (2,5.13%), Maharastra (2, 5.13%), Karnataka (2, 5.13%) and

Andhra Pradesh (1, 2.56%).

11. Length of Articles by Page

No. of Pages Years No. of Articles Percentage

2009 2010 2011 2012

01-05 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

06-10 4 7 3 10 24 43.64

7 6

5 5 5 4

2 2 2 1

Contributor States from India


25

11-15 3 5 5 6 19 34.55

16-20 4 1 4 1 10 18.18

21-25 0 0 1 0 1 1.81

26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

30-35 0 0 1 0 1 1.81

Total 11 13 14 17 55 100

Table 11. Length of Articles by Page

Graph 11. Length of Articles by Page

Table 11 shows the length of articles by page in the period under study. 24 articles (43.64%)

are between 6 and 10 pages in length, 19 articles (34.55%) between 11 and 15 pages, 10

articles (18.18%) between 16 and 20 pages, 1 article (1.81%) between 21 and 25 pages, and 1

article (1.81%) between 30-35 pages. Clearly, most articles (53, 96.37%) are between 6 and

20 pages long.

VI. Conclusion

The Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal (CLIEJ) has successfully

completed 17 years of publication. It is an open access journal in the field of library and

information science. It is getting world-wide popularity and recognition by publishing

scholarly articles from authors across the world.

In the year 2012, CLIEJ published the highest number of articles with more authors than

before. 2012 was also the year when more were listed by the authors in their articles. The

highest numbers of articles were contributed by single authors and most of the authors

belonged to various non-teaching categories. India has contributed more articles than any

other countries, followed by Nigeria, Pakistan, USA, etc. There is a clear trend that CLIEJ is

publishing more articles each year.

References

Bharvi, D.; Garg, K. C;. & Bali, A. (2007). Scientometrics of the international journal

Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 36(1), 81-93.

01-05' 06-10' 11-15' 16-20 21-25 26-30 30-35

0

24 19

10

1 0 1

Length of articles page wise


26

Davarpanah, M. R.; & Aslekia, S. (2008). Scientometric analysis of international LIS

journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics, 27(1), 21-39.

Hussain, A.; & Fatima, N. (2011). A bibliometric analysis of the ‘Chinese Librarianship: an

International Electronic Journal, (2006-2010)’. Chinese Librarianship: an International

Electronic Journal, 31. Retrieved 15 September 2012 from:

http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl31HF.pdf

Jadhav, Vandana S.; Khaparde, Vaishali S; & Shelke, Santosh M. (2011). Citation analysis of

University News Journal. Proceedings of 8th International CALIBER (Goa University, Goa,

March 2-4, 2011).

Jena, K. L. (2006). A bibliometric analysis of the ‘Journal of the Indian Society for Cotton

Improvement’. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 53(1), 22-30.

Mote, M. V.; & Deshmukh, P. P. (1996). Citation analysis of ‘Annals of Library Science and

Documentation’. Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 43(1), 11-25.

Pitchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 24,

348-349.

Ramesh, L. S. R. C. V.; & Nagaraju, A. V. S. S. (2002). Publication pattern in ‘International

Journal of Tropical Agriculture’, 1991-2000: A bibliometric study. SRELS Journal of

Information Management, 39(4), 457-465.

Rowlands, I. (2005). Emerald authorship data, Lotka’s law and research productivity. Aslib

Proceedings, 57(1), 5-10.

Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne; Sadeddin, Khaled; and Hardie, Timothy.

(2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic

literature (1994-2008). Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 3-23.

Shokeen, A.; & Kaushik, S. K. (2004). ‘Indian Journal of Plant Physiology’: A citation

analysis. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 51, 108-115.

Singh, G.; Mittal, R.; & Ahamad, M. (2007). Bibliometric study of literature on digital

libraries. The Electronic Library, 25(3), 342-348.

Subramanian, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of

Information Science, 6(1), 33-38.

Swain, Dillip K.; & Panda, K. C. (2012). ‘Journal of intellectual property rights’, 2002-2010:

A bibliometric study. Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 33.

Retrieved 15 September 2012 from: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl33SP.pdf

Zainab, A. N.; Ani, K.W.U.; & Anur, N.B. (2009). A single journal study: ‘Malayasian

Journal of Computer Science’. Malayasian Journal of Computer Science, 22(1), 1-18.

http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl31HF.pdf

http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl33SP.pdf


27

Author:

Har Singh, SPA, IGNOU and Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Library and Information Science,

Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. Email: [email protected] or

[email protected]

Submitted to CLIEJ on 17 October 2012.

Copyright © 2012 Har Singh

Singh, Har. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of the Chinese Librarianship: an International

Electronic Journal, 2009-2012. Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal,

35. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl35singh.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

[email protected]

http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl35singh.pdf

Documents

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Chinese Librarianship: an ... · The Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal (CLIEJ) is a peer-reviewed open access e-journal. CLIEJ