A bibliometric analysis of Canadian LIS scholars and practitioners' research contributions

TL;DR

This study uses a comprehensive Canadian LIS publication database to analyze research contributions, revealing distinct communities among scholars and practitioners with limited collaboration or citation overlap.

Contribution

It provides a novel bibliometric analysis of Canadian LIS research using an inclusive database, highlighting community silos and differences between academics and librarians.

Findings

Librarians and scholars have distinct research topics.

Limited collaboration between the two groups.

Different publication venues and citation patterns.

Abstract

Canada's research productivity in Library and Information Science (LIS) is significant: studies have found that Canada ranks third globally in terms of output. As the LIS field continues to grow, the pace of output accelerates, and the scope of this work expands. The recently launched Canadian Publications in Library and Information Science Database compiles all Canadian scientific publications, including those authored by faculty members and academic librarians. This database offers the advantage of encompassing articles and librarian publications that may not be typically included in traditional bibliometric surveys, such as those conducted using databases like Web of Science, Scopus, and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Using this data, this study maps the scholarly contributions of Canadian LIS scholars and academic librarians to the field of LIS and examines whether Canadian LIS research is characterized by silos. This paper examines the similarities and differences in research output, impact, topics, and publication venues between academic librarians and scholars in Canada, as well as the extent to which academics and practitioners engage in research collaborations or reference each other's work. We find that while there is some degree of overlap in research topics and publication venues between LIS academics and academic librarians, the two groups appear to act as distinct research communities with distinct topical foci and publishing habits. The two groups also do not appear to engage with each other strongly, either through collaboration or citing each other's work.