ABSTRACT
Purpose
The exponential growth in information as well as in its means and sources featured Information Literacy (IL) as vital skill in current period. Thus, purpose of the current study is to examine the literature published on IL and also analyze the correlation between altmetrics and the citation count of these published articles.
Design/Methodology/Approach
The study employed the Web of Science (WoS) database as the source for literature published on IL and used the required bibliometric measures to analyze the specific aspects of publishing trends. This study uses various bibliometric indicators to provide some insightful findings about the most productive authors, countries, and articles (using software SPSS and R). In addition, VOSviewer tools were used to create a graphical representation of the bibliometric data.
Findings
The findings reveal that the study covered articles from 1989-2022, i.e., a period of 33 years, and the most productive year was 2016. Further, the USA is the highest contributing country, and most articles published are multi-authored. The average number of citations received per document is 19.19. IL is the most frequent keyword with highest link strength with library instruction. A low positive correlation was observed between citation count and altmetric score.
Originality
The outcomes obtained will help researchers to encompass the literature published on IL, assess the trends, nature and types of research patterns being published. This analysis also reflects about the knowledge evolution of IL research domains and future trends.
INTRODUCTION
Information literacy (IL) is the ability to effectively access and efficiently evaluate information to fulfill the given information need. It comprises of cluster of competencies like research strategy, evaluation and knowledge of tools and resources (Behrens, 1994; Rader, 1991). Lenox and Walker (1993) characterized the information literate person with analytical and critical skills to formulate research questions and evaluate results and endorsed with the skills to search for and access a variety of information types in order to realize their information requirements. Zurkowski was the first to use the concept of IL in 1974 and since then the field has received a vast amount of attention from both practical and research perspectives. As the IL has the potential to transform lives and societies, its importance is appreciated globally (Rader, 2002; Zurkowski, 1974). IL is a multifaceted dimensional concept, and as such its scope range from everyday life to education and workplace settings and it covers all age groups ranging from infants to the elderly. Thus, one can conclude that IL is common to all disciplines, to all learning environments, and to all levels of education. IL certainly forms the basis for lifelong learning in present information society scenario (Pinto, Fernandez-Pascual,et al., 2019). Various new literacies have been included for IL after 2000. These include terms like lifelong literacy, self-directed learning, visual literacy, digital literacy, media literacy, health literacy, business information literacy, meta-literacy, content literacy, workplace information literacy, scientific literacy and science literacy. IL helps the learners to acquire skills which help them to become self-sufficient and have greater control over their self-learning. Thus, learners become independent, critical thinkers and life-long learner (Swapna & Biradar, 2017). Lloyd and Williamson (2008) expressed the IL as a core literacy of the information society in 21st century to achieve educational, occupational, economic and personal goals in the knowledge society. IL is vital for every profession that covers students, teachers, doctors, engineers, lawyers, judges, politicians, scientists, administrative officers, school children, businessman, industrial workers, and common citizens to perform their duties in more productive way. Thus, importance of delivering IL knowledge in current learning environments have been highlighted by many studies (Onyancha, 2020; Maybee & Flierl, 2016; Schachter, 2020; Walsh, 2009; Mulla, 2014; Parvathamma & Pattar, 2013; Sevukan & Gomathy, 2015; Shoeb, 2011; Ubogu, 2011; Wang, 2011).
The word bibliometrics has been derived from the Latin and Greek words “biblio” and “metrics”, which denotes the application of mathematics to the study of bibliography. This term was coined by Alan Pritchard and defined it as “application of mathematical and statistical methods to the entire scientific literature, books and other materials” (Pritchard, 1969). Since then, various definitions of bibliometrics has been put forward by various authors from time to time though application of mathematical and statistical methods have been the core of each of them (Durieux & Gevenois, 2010; Sengupta, 1985). Bibliometric analysis serves as a useful tool in assessing the quality and promoting scientific productivity (McBurney & Novak, 2002; Thanuskodi, 2010). In the current era, bibliometric studies are increasingly being used for the research assessment to identify the pattern of publication, publishing country, authorship, citations, journal coverage and other related items (Singh,et al., 2007; Maharana, 2013; Zhu & Willet, 2011). For this purpose, several indicators are used that are broadly classified into three groups:
Quantity indicators: It measures the productivity of a particular researcher.
Quality indicators: It measure the quality (or “performance”) of a researcher’s output; and
Structural indicators: It measures connections between publications, authors and areas of research (Durieux & Gevenois, 2010).
With advent of different social online platforms that have been extensively used by researchers for scholarly communication, an alternative metrics – Altmetrics came into use that is determined by the count of article views, saves, downloads, cites, mentions etc. in social media (Poplasen & Zrnic, 2014), with a main aim of measuring the scholar interaction from the online social media tools which are used to share the research out-put (like bookmarking, blog post, twitter, facebook post, etc.) (Jabur, 2016). Usually, the altmetrics score assigned to a particular attention indicator, which the research output has gained on different sites, is given as a weighted count in order to reflect the relative reach of each type of site or source (How is the altmetric, 2019). Since, Altmetrics measure diverse impacts and accumulate faster than citations; it is usually regarded as being complementary to citations. According to Priem, et al., (2012, p. 3) “citation and Altmetrics indicators track related but distinct impacts, with neither able to describe the complete picture of scholarly use alone.” Therefore, comparing the altmetric scores of publications with the citation counts would help to gauge the degree of association between the two.
This study is an attempt to study the literature published on IL and it is different from previous studies in objectives, period covered, and approach adopted. The study also examines the correlation between altmetrics and citation count of these articles.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Over the period, numerous bibliometric analysis studies have been carried out by researchers. Only a few relevant past bibliometric studies have been reviewed in this article pertaining to the IL. Uribe-Tirado and Alhuay Quispe (2017) in their study found three trends in international bibliometric studies pertaining to IL that are published in the past decade. These can be distinguished into:
Studies on general production (like countries, authors and journals),
Studies focused on subject areas, and Specific studies on a particular publication or context.
Various scholars have performed the bibliometric studies regarding general production that identify the highest publishing countries, the most contributing and highly cited authors, the most commonly used keywords, funding organizations and similar items (Aharony, 2010; Bhardwaj, 2017; Hsiehet al., 2013; Kolle, 2017; Majidet al., 2015; Mulla, 2012; Sproleset al., 2013; Taskinet al., 2013; Park & Kim, 2011).
The metric studies concerning the subject area have also been conducted that observed the production in recent years of IL in different subject areas. The major topics are assessment, information competencies, e-learning, libraries, and research (Alagu & Thanuskodi, 2018; Pintoet al., 2019, Pinto,et al., 2013; Urs,et al., 2013; Pinto 2015).
The trend of specific studies on a particular publication or context has also received attention. Numerous scholars examined specific journals to have insight about the authorship pattern, citations received per article, types of articles published (research or review based), etc. (Lipetz, 1999; Tiew, Abdullah & Kaur, 2002; Bakri & Willett, 2008). Panda et al., (2013) analyzed the Journal of Information Literacy from 2007 to 2012. They observed that the maximum articles published were single authored and highest contribution were from United Kingdom. Tallolli and Mulla (2016) also examined the same journal for time period 2011-2015 and thus acted as update of the previous study. They found that during this period about 155 papers has been published by 220 authors which oftenly belonged from USA, United Kingdom and Canada.
The studies evaluating the relationship between altmetrics and traditionally used bibliometrics for the IL literature is very less. But recently Uribe-Tirado and Alhuay Quispe (2017) performed similar type of research work and tried to analyze the impact and subsequent use of scholarly works about IL on social and scientific platforms using different bibliometric and altmetric indicators. They observed that there is a positive two-way impact from bibliometric to altmetric, in terms of both the productivity and the impact-visibility center on specific authors writing about IL.
Problem
Several indicators have been used to evaluate research for the past many decades. The traditional indicators gauge the research based on citations and other bibliometric whereas Altmetrics analyze the attention, use and dissemination of scientific articles from online social platforms.
Therefore, the current study aims to study the literature indexed on IL in WoS database and use the various bibliometric measures to analyze the specific aspects of publishing trends. The study also gauges the association between Altmetrics with citation score of the corresponding publications.
Scope
The scope of this study was limited to the literature on IL in WoS database. Further, the study was limited to WoS category – information science library science, document type – journal articles and published in English language only.
Objectives
The objectives of the study are:
To measure the nation wise contribution on IL.
To determine the type of publications.
To analyze the distribution of citations during different periods.
To analyze the authorship pattern.
To analyze the top keywords used.
To find out the 20 topmost cited articles with their characteristics.
To gauge the relation between Altmetrics and citation count of the selected articles.
Thus, study attempts to bring forth the quantitative growth of IL publications through various bibliometric indicators.
METHODOLOGY
The descriptive research methodology was employed for the study. For the collection of data for the current study official websites of WoS database (webofscience.com) were browsed and explored on 10-12-2023 and the relevant data on IL was harvested. The overall data collection comprised the following steps:
Search strategy
The official website of WoS was explored and total of 13 keywords were inserted under title in the advanced search box with “or” Boolean operator inserted between them. The keywords used include information literacy, digital literacy, media literacy, health literacy, business information literacy, meta-literacy, content literacy, workplace information literacy, scientific literacy, science literacy, lifelong literacy, self-directed learning and visual literacy. As of 10-6-2022, a total of 11,094 publications were found. These were further limited by document type – article, WoS categories – information science library science and language – English, that restricted the count to 1,155. From among these, all bibliometric data of each article is selected for the explorations were probed individually.
Data Extraction
The bibliometric data of each article was extracted from WoS database and the file was downloaded. Further, DOI (Digital Object Identifier) of each article was identified. DOI of top 100 highly cited articles were browsed to extract the altmetrics attention score of each article from official website of Altmetrics (altmetrics.com).
Analysis techniques
Finally, the collected data was tabulated, analyzed and interpreted in accordance with the objectives set with the help of Excel, VOSViewer, R and SPSS software tools. Further, Spearman’s rho was calculated for determining the association between the altmetrics score with citation count which is a non-parametric test that is used to measure the degree of association between two variables. The Spearman rank correlation test does not carry any assumptions about the distribution of the data and is the appropriate correlation analysis when the variables are measured on a scale that is at least ordinal. Spearman’s correlation determines the strength and direction of the monotonic relationship between two variables (Laerd statistics, 2018). The following formula is used to calculate the Spearman rank correlation:
Usually, Spearman instead of Pearson correlation is used because metrics data is typically too skewed for the assumption of normal distribution of a Pearson test and has too many zero values to be transformed into a normal distribution (Li,et al., 2012; Sud & Thelwall, 2014).
Data Interpretation
Country wise Publication
A total of 1,155 articles were selected for the study about IL and these were published in 28 different countries. Most publications belonged to USA (61.40%) followed by UK (4.88%). Australia (4.42%) and Spain (4.42%) have the same contribution followed by Canada (3.26%) and China (3.02%). It is evident from the data that USA is at par in publishing literature on IL in comparison to all other contributing nations. Table 1 presents a detailed view of all contributing nations.
Sl. No. | Country | Number | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
1 | USA | 264 | 61.40 |
2 | UK | 21 | 4.88 |
3 | Australia | 19 | 4.42 |
4 | Spain | 19 | 4.42 |
5 | Canada | 14 | 3.26 |
6 | China | 13 | 3.02 |
7 | Nigeria | 9 | 2.09 |
8 | New Zealand | 7 | 1.63 |
9 | Sweden | 7 | 1.63 |
10 | Finland | 6 | 1.40 |
11 | Pakistan | 6 | 1.40 |
12 | South Korea | 6 | 1.40 |
13 | Japan | 5 | 1.16 |
14 | Greece | 4 | 0.93 |
15 | Ireland | 4 | 0.93 |
16 | Netherlands | 4 | 0.93 |
17 | Portugal | 4 | 0.93 |
18 | Malaysia | 3 | 0.70 |
19 | Tanzania | 3 | 0.70 |
20 | Germany | 2 | 0.47 |
21 | South Africa | 2 | 0.47 |
22 | Thailand | 2 | 0.47 |
23 | Czech Republic | 1 | 0.23 |
24 | Latvia | 1 | 0.23 |
25 | Poland | 1 | 0.23 |
26 | Singapore | 1 | 0.23 |
27 | Slovenia | 1 | 0.23 |
28 | Uganda | 1 | 0.23 |
Types of documents published during the period
Most documents published on IL are in the form of articles (93.18%) while few are in form of conference proceeding papers (4.46%) and scarce amount of early access papers (1.93%) were also present. Table 2 provides detailed view.
Type of documents | Number | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Article | 1108 | 93.18 |
Proceedings papers | 58 | 4.46 |
Early access papers | 23 | 1.93 |
Distribution of citations during period
The data included the articles of 33 years from 1989-2022 and it was observed that the articles of year 2016 (106) received highest number of citations followed by year 2011 (91) and 2015 (77). But mean total citations per article is highest for year 1997 (70.5) and 2000 (67.75) while mean total citations per year is highest for year 2012 (3.65) and 2010 (3.61). The detailed view picture is provided in Table 3.
Year | No. of citations | Mean TC per article | Mean TC per Year | Citable years |
---|---|---|---|---|
1989 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 33 |
1990 | 2 | 8 | 0.25 | 32 |
1991 | 2 | 14.5 | 0.47 | 31 |
1992 | 1 | 11 | 0.37 | 30 |
1993 | 1 | 33 | 1.14 | 29 |
1994 | 2 | 70.5 | 2.52 | 28 |
1995 | 2 | 10.5 | 0.39 | 27 |
1996 | 2 | 20 | 0.77 | 26 |
1997 | 8 | 37.13 | 1.49 | 25 |
1998 | 6 | 3.17 | 0.13 | 24 |
1999 | 5 | 50.40 | 2.19 | 23 |
2000 | 4 | 67.75 | 3.08 | 22 |
2001 | 10 | 19.70 | 0.94 | 21 |
2002 | 19 | 30.11 | 1.51 | 20 |
2003 | 20 | 30.85 | 1.62 | 19 |
2004 | 14 | 20.57 | 1.14 | 18 |
2005 | 29 | 34.34 | 2.02 | 17 |
2006 | 31 | 40.61 | 2.54 | 16 |
2007 | 43 | 29.28 | 1.95 | 15 |
2008 | 34 | 26.03 | 1.86 | 14 |
2009 | 36 | 31.17 | 2.40 | 13 |
2010 | 57 | 43.28 | 3.61 | 12 |
2011 | 91 | 25.57 | 2.32 | 11 |
2012 | 57 | 36.49 | 3.65 | 10 |
2013 | 69 | 26.38 | 2.93 | 9 |
2014 | 58 | 20.98 | 2.62 | 8 |
2015 | 77 | 14.91 | 2.13 | 7 |
2016 | 103 | 13.54 | 2.26 | 6 |
2017 | 73 | 8.40 | 1.68 | 5 |
2018 | 73 | 8.01 | 2.00 | 4 |
2019 | 70 | 6.20 | 2.07 | 3 |
2020 | 62 | 4.00 | 2.00 | 2 |
2021 | 74 | 1.74 | 1.74 | 1 |
2022 | 30 | 0.40 | 0 |
Authorship Pattern and degree of collaboration
There were a total of 2340 authors that contributed to 1,155 papers under study. Among these majority of authors (87.77%) engaged in a collaborative manner for publishing their work while only 12.22% of authors have solo author publications. Further, the majority (68.79%) of multi author publications was traced during the study and the single author’s contributions were found to be 31.2%. It depicts that article publication trend in IL is towards the multi author’s approach. Further, the collaboration index 2.51 has been calculated for the publications under study (Table 4).
Total no. of Authors | 2340 |
---|---|
Authors of single-authored documents | 286 (12.22%) |
Authors of multi-authored documents | 2054 (87.77%) |
Single-authored documents | 371 (31.2%) |
Multi-authored documents | 818 (68.79%) |
Documents per Author | 0.508 |
Authors per Document | 1.97 |
Collaboration Index | 2.51 |
A collaboration index is introduced to measure the level of collaborative practices. The Collaboration Index (CI) is counted by the formula which is suggested by the Lawani (1980) as:
Where, j=The number authors in an article i.e. 1, 2, 3 ……
fj=The number of j authored articles,
N=The total number of articles published in a year, and
A=The total number of authors per articles,
The greater the collaborative index of a set of papers, the higher its proportion of quality papers is.
Top 20 highly cited articles
The study found that the most highly cited 20 articles belonged mostly (11) to the Journal of Health Communication and are generally multi-authored (15). Five articles were contributed by a single author, five by joint authors, three by three authors, two by four authors, two by five authors, one by six authors and two by seven authors respectively. One article published in 1994, one in 1997, one in 2000, one in 2002, two in 2005, three in 2006, one in 2009, three in 2010, two in 2011, three in 2012, one in 2013, and the remaining one in 2014, respectively. The article entitled “Health Literacy: What Is It?” was the most cited article with 429 citations published in journal of Health Communication during 2010. Berkman, Davis and McCormack have authored the paper, and all three authors belong to the USA. Interestingly, the top three highly cited papers were all published in the Journal of health communication i.e., they belonged to the USA. The article with the highest citation score has also highest total citations per year but it has achieved only 13 altmetric score. The highest altmetric score is achieved by article which has 8th rank in citation score. It was also noticed that there are few articles (4) that has not attained any social attention and thus have not score any altmetric attention. Table 5 provides detailed picture of data.
Title of paper and name of journal | Name of contributing Author | Total Citations | TC per Year | Normalized TC | Altmetric Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Health Literacy: What Is It? Journal of Health Communication. | Berkman, N. D., Davis, T. C., and McCormack, L. (2010). | 429 | 33 | 9.912 | 13 |
The relationship between health, education, and health literacy: results from the Dutch Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey.
Journal of health communication. |
Van Der Heide, I., Wang, J., Droomers, M., Spreeuwenberg, P., Rademakers, J., & Uiters, E. (2013). | 298 | 29.8 | 11.2978 | 10 |
The literacy divide: health literacy and the use of an internet-based patient portal in an integrated health system-results from the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE).
Journal of health communication. |
Sarkar, U., Karter, A. J., Liu, J. Y., Adler, N. E., Nguyen, R., Lopez, A., & Schillinger, D. (2010). | 221 | 17 | 5.1062 | 23 |
Critical information literacy: Implications for instructional practice.
The journal of academic librarianship. |
Elmborg, J. (2006). | 218 | 12.8235 | 5.3678 | 23 |
Low health literacy, limited English proficiency, and health status in Asians, Latinos, and other racial/ethnic groups in California.
Journal of health communication. |
Sentell, T., & Braun, K. L. (2012). | 215 | 19.5455 | 5.8918 | 10 |
Health literacy measurement: an inventory and descriptive summary of 51 instruments.
Journal of health communication. |
Haun, J. N., Valerio, M. A., McCormack, L. A., Sørensen, K., & Paasche-Orlow, M. K. (2014). | 203 | 22.5556 | 9.6746 | 34 |
Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy.
Social science computer review. |
Hargittai, E. (2005). | 202 | 11.2222 | 5.8815 | 4 |
Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy.
College & research libraries. |
Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2011). | 184 | 15.3333 | 7.1955 | 44 |
Information literacy as a sociotechnical practice.
The Library Quarterly. |
Tuominen, K., Savolainen, R., & Talja, S. (2005). | 177 | 9.8333 | 5.1536 | 7 |
Conceptions of information literacy: new perspectives and implications.
Journal of information science. |
Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2000). | 171 | 7.4348 | 2.524 | 0 |
Health literacy explains racial disparities in diabetes medication adherence.
Journal of health communication. |
Osborn, C. Y., Cavanaugh, K., Wallston, K. A., Kripalani, S., Elasy, T. A., Rothman, R. L., & White, R. O. (2011). | 145 | 12.0833 | 5.6704 | 16 |
Immediate and delayed effects of media literacy training on third grader’s decision making for alcohol.
Journal of health communication. |
Austin, E. W., & Johnson, K. K. (1997). | 145 | 5.5769 | 3.9057 | 3 |
A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy.
College & Research Libraries. |
Behrens, S. J. (1994). | 141 | 4.8621 | 2 | 3 |
The health literacy skills framework.
Journal of health communication. |
Squiers, L., Peinado, S., Berkman, N., Boudewyns, V., & McCormack, L. (2012). | 139 | 12.6364 | 3.8091 | 5 |
Developing the information literacy self‐efficacy scale.
Journal of documentation. |
Kurbanoglu, S. S., Akkoyunlu, B., & Umay, A. (2006). | 137 | 8.0588 | 3.3733 | 0 |
A discipline-based approach to information literacy.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship. |
Grafstein, A. (2002). | 134 | 6.381 | 4.451 | 0 |
Information literacy landscapes: an emerging picture.
Journal of documentation. |
Lloyd, A. (2006). | 133 | 7.8235 | 3.2748 | 0 |
Health literacy and 30-day post discharge hospital utilization.
Journal of health communication. |
Mitchell, S. E., Sadikova, E., Jack, B. W., & Paasche-Orlow, M. K. (2012). | 131 | 11.9091 | 3.5899 | 8 |
How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development.
Library & Information Science Research. |
Julien, H., & Barker, S. (2009). | 130 | 9.2857 | 4.1711 | 1 |
Self-efficacy links health literacy and numeracy to glycemic control.
Journal of health communication. |
Osborn, C. Y., Cavanaugh, K., Wallston, K. A., & Rothman, R. L. (2010). | 126 | 9.6923 | 2.9112 | 7 |
Keyword occurrence
The strengths of word association may shed more light on the independence and the rise and development of the new and emerging literacies. The analysis of the keywords chosen by the authors to index the content of their papers is also of great interest. There were 2176 keywords that co-appeared with IL in the literature. Figure 1 provides the keywords mentioned as the author supplied keywords and keyword plus in the IL literature. The most frequent terms in keywords were selected, excluding those whose frequency was less than 5 occurrences, as these are considered as being not relevant to the research. This leads to a decrease in number of keywords to 205. Among these, Information literacy is the most popular term among scholars, and it appeared 313 times. In second position, but far behind in terms of the number is term skills, which appeared 115 times, followed by education (102) and students (85). It indicates that major works are pertaining to assessment of information literacy among students in higher education. Media literacy is the burning issue in the computer science subject since the last decade; it may be due to advancements in information and communication technologies.

Figure 1:
Keyword Occurrence.
The network view is created using the VOS clustering technique, where VOS stands for the visualization of similarities (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). VOSViewer software provides distance-based maps and identifies the clusters of co-occurring words, which allows us to identify the main terms and the relationships between those terms. We have considered the “total link strength attribute”, which indicates the total strength of the links of an item with other items. Colors indicate the cluster to which a term was assigned. To facilitate interpretation, the links in the keywords network are displayed using curved lines (Figure 1).
The figure consists of six clusters
Cluster 1: It consists of 69 items depicted by red color. Most occurring words among them are knowledge, outcomes, care, impact, information, communication and internet.
Cluster 2: It consists of 38 items depicted by green color. Most occurring words among them are information literacy, education, academic libraries, librarians, higher education, health literacy and libraries.
Cluster 3: It consists of 31 items depicted by blue color. Most occurring words among them are skills, students, instruction, perceptions, university, curriculum and faculty.
Cluster 4: It consists of 27 items depicted by yellow color. Most occurring words among them are library, seeking, behavior, web, attitudes, science and seeking behavior.
Cluster 5: It consists of 23 items depicted by purple color. Most occurring words among them are self-efficacy, model, digital literacy, framework, model, performance and management.
Cluster 6: It consists of 17 items depicted by brown color. Most occurring words among them are library instruction, online, motivation, trends, e-learning, pedagogy and critical thinking.
Spearman correlation for Top 100 highly cited papers on IL
An analysis of top 100 highly cited papers indicated that only 5 of them do not possessed DOI and about 64% (95) of the DOI manuscripts, had at least one altmetric activity. Using Spearman’s rho, it was also evidenced that there is a low positive correlation between the number of citations received and altmetric score of top highly cited papers (rs=0.248) as depicted in Table 6. Uribe-Tirado and Alhuay Quispe (2017) in their study also observed positive two-way impact from bibliometric to altmetric, in terms of both the productivity and the impact-visibility center on specific authors writing about IL.
Spearman’s rho for citation and altmetric score | Number | rs |
---|---|---|
100 | .248 |
But there is need for further investigation in this domain to find direct relationships between different sources and platforms of altmetrics and bibliometrics to get better understanding of their correlations. Alperin (2015); Kuchner (2012); Uribe-Tirado and Alhuay Quispe (2017) proposed that two processes are crucial for gaining online attention which include formation of digital identity by authors or researchers for the creation and management and that the publications must possess DOI.
CONCLUSION
The study is based on the contributions made in the field of IL, a total of 11,094 articles has been published in the period of 33 years. For the purpose of study, the number was limited to 1,155 articles by restricting the scope through document type, WoS categories and language. The major contribution found during the study was USA (61.40%) and UK (4.88%). These are consistent with findings of Kolle (2017) and Aharony (2010) where they found that most of the documents on IL, were published in the US with UK at second position and other countries very far behind. Other studies also highlighted the same trend of US appear as leading publishing nation on IL (Nazim & Ahmad, 2007; Johnsonet al., 2012; Kondiliset al., 2008, Kumariet al., 2015) also found the same trend of US appear as leading publishing nation. The overall 19.19 average citations per document have been found. It was observed that the articles of year 2016 (106) received highest number of citations but mean total citations per article is highest for year 1997 (70.5) while mean total citations per year is highest for year 2012 (3.65). 93.18% of documents are in the form of articles and 4.46% are available in form of conference proceeding papers during the period. 87.77% of authors engaged in collaborative manners for publishing their work while only 12.22% of authors have solo publications. The collaboration index value is 2.51 that shows that there is encouraging multiple author’s contributions in the field of IL. From the study, the majority of joint authorship and high collaboration index reveals that team research is predominant during the study. These findings consist with previous studies that there is encouraging the multiple author’s contributions in field of IL (Alagu, & Thanuskodi, 2018; Tallolli, & Mulla, 2016). Information literacy is the most popular keyword followed by skills, education and students. This indicates that major works in IL are related to assessment of information literacy among students in higher education which is consistent with findings of Kolle (2017). The study also observed low positive correlation between the number of citations received and altmetric score of top highly cited papers which is supported by previous studies also (Araujo, et al. (2018); Eysenbach, 2011; Rosenkrantzet al., 2017; Uribe-Tirado, & Alhuay Quispe, 2017). Utilizing online social tools by researchers such as ORCID ID, Researcher ID, Research Gate profile, or LinkedIn and link to their profiles on university webpages, CVs, and/or within email signatures can enhance visibility of their publications (Brown, 2016; Schilhanet al., 2021). This will lead to increase in altmetric score progressively.
Cite this article:
Lone AW, Ayoub A. Mapping the Scholarly Content on Information Literacy through Bibliometric and Altmetric Lenses. Info Res Com. 2024;1(3):165-75.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Special thanks to two anonymous reviewers who are going to spare their time to check the manuscript.
ABBREVIATIONS
IL | Information Literacy |
---|---|
WoS | Web of Science |
DOI | Digital Object Identifier. |
References
- Aharony N.. (2010) Information literacy in the professional literature: An exploratory analysis. Aslib Proceedings 62: 261-282 https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531011046907 | Google Scholar
- Alagu A., Thanuskodi S.. (2018) Information literacy research publications in India: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science 7: 201-207 https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531011046907 | Google Scholar
- Alperin J. P.. (2013) Ask not what altmetrics can do for you, but what altmetrics can do for developing countries. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 39: 18-21 https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2013.1720390407 | Google Scholar
- How is the Altmetric Attention Score calculated?. 2019 calculated Retrieved April 14, 2023
- Araujo A. C., Nascimento D. P., Gonzalez G. Z., Maher C. G., Costa L. O. P.. (2018) Impact of low back pain clinical trials measured by the Altmetric score: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 20: e86 https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9368 | Google Scholar
- Bakri A., Willett P.. (2008) 2001–2006: A bibliometric study, Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 13: 103-116 https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9368 | Google Scholar
- Baro E. E., Endouware B. C., Ubogu J. O.. (2011) Information literacy among medical students in the College of Health Sciences in Niger Delta University. Nigeria [Program] 45: 107-120 https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9368 | Google Scholar
- Behrens S. J.. (1994) A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy. College and Research Libraries 55: 309-322 https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_55_04_309 | Google Scholar
- Bhardwaj R. K.. (2017) Information literacy literature in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A bibliometric study. Information and Learning Science 118: 67-89 https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-09-2016-0068 | Google Scholar
- Brown A., Cowan J., Green T.. (2016) Faculty productivity: Using social media and measuring its impact. Educause Review 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-09-2016-0068 | Google Scholar
- Durieux V., Gevenois P. A.. (2010) Bibliometric indicators: Quality Measurements of scientific publication. Radiology 255: 342-351 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090626 | Google Scholar
- Eysenbach G.. (2011) Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13: e123 https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012 | Google Scholar
- Hossain Shoeb Z. H.. (2011) Information literacy competency of freshman business students of a private university in Bangladesh. Library Review 60: 762-772 https://doi.org/10.1108/00242531111176781 | Google Scholar
- . (2013) A bibliometric analysis of the theses and dissertations on information literacy published in the United States and Taiwan 1: 337-348 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35452-6_35 | Google Scholar
- Jabur N. H.. (2016) Altmetrics as alternative tool for measuring the impact of scholarly documents based on readers attention: A Comparative Study. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) 5: 335-346 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35452-6_35 | Google Scholar
- Johnson A. M., Sproles C., Detmering R., English J.. (2012) Library instruction and information literacy 2011. Reference Services Review 40: 601-703 https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321211277396 | Google Scholar
- Kolle S. R.. (2017) Global research on information literacy: A bibliometric analysis from 2005 to 2014. The Electronic Library 35: 283-298 https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2015-0160 | Google Scholar
- Kondilis B. K., Kiriaze I. J., Athanasoulia A. P., Falagas M. E.. (2008) Mapping health literacy research in the European Union: A bibliometric analysis. PLOS One 3: Article e2519 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002519 | Google Scholar
- Kuchner M.. (2012) Marketing for scientists. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002519 | Google Scholar
- Kumari A., Madhusudhan C. M., Ali H.. (2015) A bibliometric study of world research output on information literacy in the field of library and information science during 1999–2013. e-Library Science Research Journal 3: 1-10 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002519 | Google Scholar
- Lawani S. M.. (1980) Quality, collaboration and citations in cancer research: A bibliometric study. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002519 | Google Scholar
- Lenox M. F., Walker M. L.. (1993) Information literacy in the educational process. In The Educational Forum. 57: 312-324 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729309335431 | Google Scholar
- Li X., Thelwall M., Giustini D.. (2012) Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 91: 461-471 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729309335431 | Google Scholar
- Lipetz B. A.. (1999) Aspects of JASIS authorship through five decades. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50: 994-1003 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729309335431 | Google Scholar
- Lloyd A., Williamson K.. (2008) Towards an understanding of information literacy in context: Implications for research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 40: 3-12 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Maharana R. K.. (2013) Bibliometric analysis of Orissa University of Agricultural Technology’s research output as indexed in Scopus in 2008–2012. Chinese Librarianship: An International Electronic Journal 36: 25-34 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Majid S., Chang Y. K., Hnin N. A., Ma M. W. K., San Y. W.. (2015) Analyzing publishing trends in information literacy literature: A bibliometric study. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 20: 51-66 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Maybee C., Flierl M.. (2016) In European Conference on Information Literacy : 698-707 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- McBurney M. K., Novak P. L.. (2002) In Proceedings. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. IEEE : 108-114 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Mulla K. R.. (2012) Identifying and mapping the information science and scientometrics analysis studies in India (2005–2009): A bibliometric study. Library Philosophy and Practice 12: 1-16 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Mulla K. R.. (2014) Information literacy for students and teachers in Indian context. Pearl: A Journal of Library and Information Science 8: 88-96 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Nazim M., Ahmad M.. (2007) Research trends in information literacy: A bibliometric study. SRELS Journal of Information Management 44: 53-62 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Onyancha O. B.. (2020) Knowledge visualization and mapping of information literacy, 1975–2018. IFLA Journal 46: 107-123 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Panda I., Maharana B., Chhatar D. C.. (2013) The journal of information literacy: A bibliometric study. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 3: 1-7 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Park M. K., Kim H. J.. (2011) A bibliometric analysis of the literature on information literacy. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management 28: 53-63 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Parvathamma N., Pattar D.. (2013) Digital literacy among student community in management institutes in Davanagere District, Karnataka State, India. Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS) 60: 159-166 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Pinto M.. (2015) Viewing and exploring the subject area of information literacy assessment in higher education (2000–2011). Scientometrics 102: 227-245 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Pinto M., Escalona M. I., Pulgarin A.. (2013) Information literacy in social sciences and health sciences: A bibliometric study (1974–2011). Scientometrics 95: 1071-1094 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616 | Google Scholar
- Pinto M., Fernández-Pascual R., Caballero-Mariscal D., Sales D., Guerrero D., Uribe A., et al. (2019) Scientific production on mobile information literacy in higher education: A bibliometric analysis (2006–2017). Scientometrics 120: 57-85 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03115-x | Google Scholar
- Poplasen L. M., Zrnic L.. Libraries in the digital age (LIDA) proceedings. 2014:13
- Priem J., Piwowar H. A., Hemminger B. M.. 2012 arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.4745. Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact.
- Pritchard A.. (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation 25: 348 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03115-x | Google Scholar
- Rader H. B.. (1991) Information literacy: A revolution in the library. RQ 31: 25-30 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03115-x | Google Scholar
- Rader H. B.. (2002) Information literacy 1973–2002: A Selected Literature Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03115-x | Google Scholar
- Rosenkrantz A. B., Ayoola A., Singh K., Duszak R.. (2017) Alternative metrics (‘altmetrics’) for assessing article impact in popular General Radiology Journals. Academic Radiology 24: 891-897 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.11.019 | Google Scholar
- Schachter D.. (2020) Theory into practice: Challenges and implications for information literacy teaching. IFLA Journal 46: 133-142 https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035219886600 | Google Scholar
- Schilhan L., Kaier C., Lackner K.. (2021) Increasing visibility and discoverability of scholarly publications with academic search engine optimization. Insights The UKSG Journal 34 https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.534 | Google Scholar
- SenGupta I. N.. (1985) Bibliometrics: A bird’s eye view. Iaslic Bulletin 30: 167-174 https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.534 | Google Scholar
- Sevukan R., Gomathy V.. (2015) Digital literacy of postgraduate students in management institutions of Puducherry: A survey. Pearl: A Journal of Library and Information Science 9: 66-74 https://doi.org/10.5958/0975-6922.2015.00009.1 | Google Scholar
- Singh G., Mittal R., Ahmad M.. (2007) A bibliometric study of literature on digital libraries. The Electronic Library 25: 342-348 https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710754841 | Google Scholar
- Sproles C., Detmering R., Johnson A. M.. (2013) Trends in the literature on library instruction and information literacy, 2001–2010. Reference Services Review 41: 395-412 https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-03-2013-0014 | Google Scholar
- Sud P., Thelwall M.. (2014) Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics 98: 1131-1143 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2 | Google Scholar
- Swapna G., Biradar B. S.. (2017) Information literacy model for higher education institutions in India. International Journal of Digital Library Services 7: 31-50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2 | Google Scholar
- Tallolli S. B., Mulla K. R.. (2016) A bibliometric analysis of journal of information literacy (2011–2015). ISST Journal of Advances in Librarianship 7: 44-51 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2 | Google Scholar
- Taskin Z., Dogan G., Sencan I.. (2013) In European Conference on Information Literacy
: 54-60 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2 | Google Scholar - Thanuskodi S.. (2010) Bibliometric analysis of the journal Library Philosophy and Practice from 2005–2009. Library Philosophy and Practice 1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2 | Google Scholar
- Tiew W. S., Abdullah A., Kaur K.. (2001) 1996–2000: A bibliometric study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 6: 43-56 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2 | Google Scholar
- Uribe-Tirado A., Alhuay-Quispe J.. (2017) Estudio métrico de ALFIN en Iberoamérica: De la bibliometría a las altmetrics [Metric study of information literacy in Latin America: From bibliometrics to altmetrics]. Revista Española de Documentación Científica 40 https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2017.3.1414 | Google Scholar
- . (2013) National conference on inspiring library services (NCILS-2013) : 1 https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2017.3.1414 | Google Scholar
- Van Eck N. J., Waltman L.. (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84: 523-538 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 | Google Scholar
- Vijayakumar M., Naqvi S. H.. (2002) Authorship tends in Azadirachta indica literature: A bibliometric study. SERLS Journal of Information Management 39: 445-455 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 | Google Scholar
- Walsh A.. (2009) Information literacy assessment: Where do we start?. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 41: 19-28 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000608099896 | Google Scholar
- Wang L.. (2011) An information literacy integration model and its application in higher education. Reference Services Review 39: 703-720 https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111186703 | Google Scholar
- Zhu Q., Willett P.. (2011) Bibliometric analysis of Chinese Superconductivity Research, 1986–2007. Aslib Proceedings 63: 101-119 https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531111103803 | Google Scholar
- Zurkowski P. G.. 1974 Related Paper no. 5. The information service environment relationships and priorities.