Authorship Trend And Content Analysis

Authorship trend
and content analysis
A case study on highly cited articles in library
and information science journals
Jyotshna Sahoo
Department of Library and Information Science,
Khallikote University, Berhampur, India
Basudev Mohanty
Library Department, Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
Oshin Biswal
Library Department, Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology,
Sarang, Dhenkanal, India
Nrusingh Kumar Dash
Library Department, Silicon Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, India, and
Jayanta Kumar Sahu
Sambalpur University, Burla, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the classic characteristics of highly cited articles (HCAs)
of top-ranked library and information science (LIS) journals and get acquainted with the high-quality works
in specific areas of LIS for distinguishing what gets cited and who the prolific authors are.
Design/methodology/approach – The HCAs published across the top four LIS journals were downloaded,
coded and a database was developed with basic metadata elements for analysis using bibliometric indicators.
Lotka’s Inverse Square Law of Scientific Productivity was applied to assess the author’s productivity of HCA. The
content analysis method was also used to find out the emerging areas of research that have sought high citations.
Findings – Inferences were drawn for the proposed five number of research questions pertaining to
individual productivity, collaboration patterns country and institutional productivity, impactful areas of
research. The Netherland found to be the potential player among all the affiliating countries of authors and
Loet Leydesdorff tops the list among the prolific authors. It is observed that Lotka’s Classical Law also fits the
HCA data set in LIS. “Research impact measurement and research collaboration,” “Social networking” and
“Research metrics and citation-based studies” are found to be the emerging areas of LIS research.
Practical implications – Researchers may find a way what gets cited in specific areas of LIS literature and
why along with who are the prolific authors.
Originality/value – This study is important from the perspective of the growing research field of the LIS
discipline to identify the papers that have influenced others papers as per citation count, spot the active and
more impactful topics in LIS research.
Keywords Authorship pattern, Content analysis, Lotka’s law, H5-index, Highly cited articles, Top 25 articles
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A citation is a reference given to a previously published source of information that is
relevant to the present piece of work. Citations are used to acknowledge prior relevant
research done in a given context. Almost all journal articles that appear in the scientific
literature contain citations. The purposes of citing are many. The author may be criticizing
the earlier item, building on it, using it to enhance his argument, or acknowledging an early
pioneer (Cronin, 1984; Garfield, 1979). The formal use of citations in scientiﬁc literature dates
back only to the nineteenth century as scholars and scientists started to give continuity to
Performance Measurement and
Metrics
Vol. 21 No. 1, 2020
pp. 33-51
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1467-8047
DOI 10.1108/PMM-06-2019-0021
Received 2 June 2019
Revised 18 September 2019
Accepted 3 October 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-8047.htm
33
Authorship
trend and
content
analysis

their body of ideas (Hamrick et al., 2010). The systematic effort to track citations in the
scientific literature was popularized with the publication of Science Citation Index by
Garfield (1955). It is accepted that highly cited articles (HCAs) are associated with
high-quality research (Levitt and Thelwall, 2009). The metric used to measure the quality of
science of a country which is the ratio of highly cited papers to total papers (TP) produced in
sequential time frames by researchers from that country (Kostoff et al., 2008). Heavily cited
articles by virtue of their visibility are a key driver of reputation effects in academia
(Antonakis et al., 2014). Generally, citations acknowledge the impact an author has had on
another’s work and can be conceived of as “the currency by which we repay the intellectual
debt we owe to our predecessors” (Garfield, 1982). Citations reflect the relevance that the
cited article has for a particular article (Antonakis and Lalive, 2008).
Rationale
Citation studies in any academic discipline are vital for a number of reasons. First, such
studies are important to the authors whose work is accounted among the most-cited works.
Second, these studies identify the seminal works in an area of discipline. They also illustrate
the development of the literature over a period of time, which helps to determine which
issues have been central to a particular field and identify those individuals who have made
significant contributions to the field. Third, citations help in mapping important intellectual
trends within the field. Being the author of a “most cited” paper can result in financial
benefits at annual performance reporting periods and in prestige (Diamond, 1986). Fourth,
finding the most cited papers can provide insight into those papers that have been found to
be important by others (Garfield and Welljams-Dorof, 1992). Fifth, summarizing those
references in a single location may be helpful to others by bringing out research that others
have found important. Pointing out those most cited papers can be useful to other
researchers by pointing to papers with ideas that have influenced other researchers in a
related discipline.
Related works
Many researchers have explored the characteristics of highly cited papers in different
disciplines. For instance highly cited papers are studied in biochemistry and biophysics
(Maheshand and Panwar, 2013), material science (Ho, 2014), medicine (Csako, 2007),
veterinary science (ELsinghorst, 2002), environmental and occupational health (Smith,
2009), neurosurgery (Ponceand and Lozano, 2010), human systemsmanagement (O’Leary,
2007), knowledge management (Nonaka and Peltokorpi, 2006; Serenko and Dumay, 2015a,
b), kinesiology (Knudson, 2015), statistics (Ryan and Woodall, 2005), psychology (Price et al.,
2011), intelligent transportation system (Moral-Muñoz et al., 2016), sports (Hancock et al.,
2015) and software engineering (SE) (Garousi and Fernandes, 2016).
As regards the HCAsin library and information science (LIS) field, Levitt and Thelwall
(2009) investigated the 82 most highly cited Information Science and Library Science
(IS&LS) articles (the top 0.1 percent) of the Web of Science (WoS) and showed the
disciplinary, annual citation patterns and first author citation profiles. The results show that
significant research is produced by researchers without a high overall IS&LS research
productivity. Two-thirds of the first authors had an h-index in IS&LS of less than 8.
The authors suggested that the promotion of interdisciplinary research in IS&LS may be
conducive to improving research quality. Blessinger and Hrycaj (2010) worked on 32 HCAs
published between 1968 and 2000. Results revealed that the majority of the authors of the
HCAs had one HCA. Two journals, namely, Journal of the American Society for Information
Science (38 percent) and the Journal of Documentation (31 percent) published close to
70 percent of the HCAs. There was not a single practicing librarian represented among the
authors of the 32 HCAs and only two subject categories, namely, research in librarianship/users
34
PMM
21,1

(68 percent) and technology (22 percent) were found as dominant works. Ivanović and
Ho (2014) analyzed the characteristics of HCAs (cited at least 100 times since publication)
published in the IS&LS category in the Social Science Citation Index. The authors worked on
501 HCAs published between 1956 and 2009 in 37 journals and the results reveal
that MIS Quarterly published 26 percent of all analyzed HCAs. Researchers from
the USA contributed 67 percent of HCAs. An analysis of author self-citation behavior has
been carried out by Shah et al. (2015) in LIS. Bauer et al. (2016) analyzed the top
1 percent most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the WoS
subject category “IS&LS.” The authors come up with the result that 798 authors contributed to
305 top 1 percent publications and these authors were employed at
275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of
papers. Analysis of co-authorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows
that co-authorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics they
identified that were important between 2002 and 2012 are: collection and exploitation of
information in clinical practices, the use of the internet in public communication and commerce,
and scientometrics.
Apart from HCA in the LIS field, some relevant works in other subject areas are reviewed
as follows. Ryan and Woodall (2005) studied most-cited statistical papers, identified the top
25 papers and pointed out the changes that had been witnessed by the discipline. Nonaka
and Peltokorpi (2006) reviewed 20 of the most frequently cited KM articles in management
journals. Ho (2014) analyzed the characteristics of 14,044 HCAs each with at least 100
citations in material science, indexed under eight WoS categories since publication to 2011.
Results showed that HCAs were published in high impact factor journals as well as in lower
impact factor journals. The article by Geim and Novoselov, 2007, who won Nobel laureates
in physics in 2010, ranked first by three indicators of citations in publication year, recent
year (C2011) and citations since publication to 2011 (TC2011). Garousi and Fernandes (2016)
carried out a study to identify the papers in the area of SE that have inﬂuenced others the
most, as measured by citation count and focused on the type of approaches and research
methods presented in such papers. The authors classified the top-100 highly cited SE papers
in terms of two metrics: the total number of citations and the average annual number of
citations. A study on citation classics has been carried out in the field of intelligent
transportation system by Moral-Muñoz et al. (2016). The authors developed a new approach
known as H-Classics which has been employed to identify highly cited papers. The study
provides a useful insight into the development of the intelligent transport systems research
field, revealing those scientific actors (authors, countries and institutions) that have made
the biggest research contribution to its development. Price et al. (2011) examined the top 100
most highly cited papers of all time in the field of psychology. Serenko and Dumay, 2015a, b
made a study on KM in two different parts. The authors concluded that “the discipline does
not exhibit the signs of the superstar effect, scholars from the USA and UK have made the
most signiﬁcant impact on the development of the KM school of thought.” The second study
revealed that a majority of KM citation classics exhibit a bimodal citation distribution peak
and there are a growing number of citations for all research topics. Akhavan et al. (2007)
employed bibliometric and text mining on a sample of 500 most cited articles where a
positive relationship was found between the number of publications, keywords, references
and the number of citations. Serenko and Dumay (2017) constructed an archetype of KM
classic authors was focusing on demographics, personal characteristics and work
preferences in the field of KM.
It is evident from the above literature that as a subject of research HCAs are studied in
many dimensions. While some scholars worked on the general characteristics of HCA in
different subjects and identified the seminal works, the influential authors, prolific
institutions and countries, others portray the reasons behind such high citations.
35
Authorship
trend and
content
analysis

Finding out the relationship of HCA with literature aging and citation autobiography are
also some of the interesting works conducted in the highly cited papers. The present study
is focused on the influential authors and the key areas of HCA.
Methodology
Identification of articles
The data used in the present study were taken from Google Scholar Metrics. Google Scholar
has introduced a new journal metric as an alternative to the impact factor which is known as
the h5-index. It is equivalent to the Hirsch index, but calculated for a journal rather than an
author, over a five-year period. So, an h5 of 10 means that during the past five years a
journal has published ten articles which were each cited at least ten times and many more
articles which were cited more than ten times. Google Scholar Metrics provide an easy way
for authors to quickly judge the visibility and influence of recent articles in scholarly
publications. Scholar Metrics summarize recent citations to many publications. The top
publications in a field are ordered by their five-year h-index and h-median metrics. Which
articles in a publication were cited the most and who cited them can be known by clicking on
its h-index number that shows the articles as well as the citations underlying each article.
For obtaining the required information in the discipline of LIS, the top four journals on the
basis of the h5-index (as on October 4, 2017) were selected as the data source. The top four
Journals are: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
(h5-index: 54), Scientometrics (h5-index: 47), Journal of Informetrics (h5-index: 37), Online
Information Review (h5-index: 28). Finally, all the HCAs of each of the journals (N ¼ 166)
were identified as the data set for the present study.
Article coding, database development and content analysis of HCA
Electronic copies of all the 166 HCAs across the four LIS journals were downloaded, coded
assigning a unique number and a database was developed in MS-Excel spreadsheet with
basic metadata elements for each publication. The fields of metadata of each publication
record consist of Journal Name ( JN), Title of the articles (TI), Publication Year (PY),
Author (AU), Author Position (AP), Author Affiliation (AA), Country of Affiliated
Institutions (CAI) and Times Cited (TC) for analysis. The analytical methodology used for
the study involves both computational and manual tasks. The computational analyses of
data include various scientometric indicators such as TP, total citations (TC), range of
citations (RC), average citations per paper (ACPP) and Productivity Index (PI). Besides,
Lotka’s Inverse Square Law of Scientific Productivity has been applied to assess the
author’s productivity of HCA.
Research questions
This study examines the following research questions:
RQ1. What is the authorship trend with respect to the collaboration pattern and PI of
HCA? Does Lotka’s generalized formula fit to the HCA in LIS?
RQ2. Who are the prominent authors in LIS?
RQ3. Which countries and institutions have made a significant impact on the HCA in LIS
discipline? What are the differences observed in the ranking pattern of countries
and institutions by the direct count and equal credit methods?
RQ4. What are the areas of research of HCAs?
RQ5. What is the distribution pattern of the top 25 highly cited works? Are they evenly
distributed among the four journals or these are concentrated in only one journal
and what subject areas do the top 25 HCAs focus on?
36
PMM
21,1

Results and discussions
Table I shows four different indicators, namely, TP, TC, RC and ACPP. Here, it would be
worth mentioning that ACPP value is defined as ACPP ¼ TCPT/. A total of 166 articles with
a total of 13,287 citations have ACPP of around 80. Out of the four journals in the category of
HCA, the highest number of articles (32.5 percent) are from JASIST with 40 percent of all
citations. The RC also varies among journals. As regards the ACPP, it is highest in the case
of the journal JASIST (100.3) followed by Scientometrics (77), Journal of Informatics (74.2)
and Online Information Review (54.1). The quality of the journals is reflected both from the
h-5 index value and impact factor given in Table I, JASIST has the highest h-5 index (54)
while JOI has highest IF (2.92):
RQ1. What is the authorship trend with respect to the collaboration pattern and PI of
HCA? Does Lotka’s generalized formula fit to the HCA in LIS?
The first research question concerning the authorship trend and their collaboration pattern
is addressed in Table II. A total of 166 papers of the HCA have 424 authors. The mean
authorship of individual journals ranges from 2.4 (JASIST) to 2.7( JOI) and overall it is 2.6.
Out of the 166 HCA, only 34 (20.48 percent) numbers of papers have single authors and the
rest 132 (79.52 percent) numbers by multiple authors. The contributions of two authored
papers are very high 60 (36.14 percent) followed by three 41 (24.70 percent), four 20
Total
papers
(TP)
Total
citations
(TC)
S. No.
Name of the
journal No % No %
Range of
citations
(RC)
Average
citations
per paper
(ACPP)
H5-
index Publisher Country
Impact
factor
1 JASIST 54 32.5 5,414 40.7 54 to 441 100.3 54 Wiley-
Blackwell
USA 2.322
2 Scientometrics 47 28.3 3,617 27.2 47 to 304 77.0 47 Springer The
Netherlands
2.147
3 Journal of
Informetrics
(JOI)
37 22.3 2,743 20.6 37 to 245 74.2 37 Elsevier The
Netherlands
2.920
4 Online
Information
Review (OIR)
28 16.9 1,513 11.4 28 to 128 54.1 28 Emerald
Group
Publishing
Ltd
UK 1.534
Total 166 100 13,287 100 28 to 441 80.04 – – – –
Table I.
Qualitative indicators
of the journals
undertaken
for the study
JASIST Scientometrics
Journal of
Informatics OIR Total
Authors No. Authorship No. Authorship No. Authorship No. Authorship No. % Authorship
Single 15 15 11 11 4 4 4 4 34 20.48 34
Two 17 34 17 34 16 32 10 20 60 36.14 120
Three 14 42 9 27 10 30 8 24 41 24.70 123
Four 6 24 4 16 5 20 5 20 20 12.05 80
Five 1 5 3 15 1 5 1 5 6 3.61 30
WFive 1 9 3 20 1 8 0 0 5 3.01 37
Total 54 129 47 123 37 99 28 73 166 100 424
Mean
Authorship
2.4 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6
Multi Author 39 72.2 36 76.6 33 89.2 24 85.7
Collaboration
Co-efficient 0.72 0.77 0.89 0.86 0.66
Table II.
Authorship pattern
and degree of
collaboration with
mean authorship
37
Authorship
trend and
content
analysis

(12.05 percent), five and more than five authors 11 (6.62 percent) papers. Collaboration
co-efficient of authors reflects that it is the highest in the case of JOI (0.89 percent), followed
by OIR (0.86 percent), Scientometrics (0.77 percent) and JASIST (0.72 percent). For the HCA
of the LIS field, multiple-authored works are dominant over single-authored papers.
It is observed that 252 authors have contributed single paper each and its proportion is
85 percent that gives the value of Constant (C) which is equal to the number of contributors
with minimal Productivity. Table III and Figure 1 illustrate the variation of observed and
estimated authors’ percentile with their contributions.
In order to test the applicability of Lotka’s law to a set of data, a statistical test
(goodness-of-fit) has been used. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) test determines the
maximum deviation (D) as under:
D ¼ Max Fo x
ð Þ Sn x
ð Þ ;
where Fo(x) is the theoretical cumulative frequency function and Sn(x) the observed
cumulative frequency function.
No. of
authors
observed
“Y”
Total
contributions
n ¼ (Log C –
Log Y)/Log X
POWER
(n, 2.65)
Estimated
frequency
of authors
No. of contributions “X” Log X No. % Log Y No. % Parameter f(n) No. %
1 0.000 252 85.14 5.529 252 59.43 1.0 252 79.00
2 0.693 19 6.42 2.944 38 8.96 3.73 6.3 40 12.59
3 1.099 12 4.05 2.485 36 8.49 2.77 18.4 14 4.30
4 1.386 5 1.69 1.609 20 4.72 2.83 39.4 6 2.01
5 1.609 2 0.68 0.693 10 2.36 3.00 71.2 4 1.11
6 1.792 1 0.34 0.000 6 1.42 3.09 115.4 2 0.68
9 2.197 2 0.68 0.693 18 4.25 2.20 337.9 1 0.23
11 2.398 1 0.34 0.000 11 2.59 2.31 575.0 0 0.14
15 2.708 1 0.34 0.000 15 3.54 2.04 1,308.1 0 0.06
18 2.890 1 0.34 0.000 18 4.25 1.91 2,120.7 0 0.04
296 100 5.690 424 100 2.65 319 100
Mean
Notes: C ¼ No. of Authors with minimal productivity (i.e. 252) and Log C ¼ 5.529. The bold value
significant estimated frequency of authors applying Lotka’s Law
Table III.
Number of expected
authors derived using
Lotka’s Inverse
square Law
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 9 11 15 18
Percentage
of
Authors
No. of Contributions
Applicability of Lotka's Law:
Trend of Observed v/s Estimated Authors with their contributions
% of Observed Authors
% of Estimated Authors
Figure 1.
Observed v/s
Estimated Authors
with their
contributions using
Lotka’s Law
38
PMM
21,1

At a 0.01 level of significance, the K–S statistic is equal to 1.63/√n. If D is greater than the K–S
statistic, then the sample distribution does not fit the theoretical distribution. As shown in
Table IV, D from the HCA in LIS is 0.02 which is less than the K–S statistic, i.e. 1.63/√296 ~
0.0947, therefore Lotka’s generalized formula with exponent value “n” (2.65) fits to the HCA in LIS.
Productivity Index (PI)
With regard to the Lotka’s classical method to test the regularity in publication activity of
authorsas cited above, the index called PI (Garcia et al., 2005; Sevukan et al., 2007) has been
applied to identify the level of productivity of HCA as shown in Table V. The PI reveals that
occasional producers (85 percent authors) who published only one each paper (PI ¼ 0)
contribute 59.4 percent of total HCA in LIS, intermediate producers (13.85 percent authors)
who published 2–9 papers (0oPIo1) contribute 30.19 percent of total LIS literature while
larger producers (only 3 authors; 1.01 percent) who published more than ten papers
(PI ⩾ 1) produce 10.38 percent of total HCA in LIS:
RQ2. Who are the prominent authors of HCA?
To respond to the subsequent research question concerning the influential authors of
HCA, the prolific authors with their number of contributions and rank as per the straight
count approach as well as equal credit scoring (Chua et al., 2002; Lowry et al., 2007) is
detailed in Table VI. In the straight count approach, each author receives one point
regardless of the total number of authors in the paper. In equal credit scoring, each author
receives an equal portion of the score regardless of the authorship order. Loet Leydesdorff
from the Netherland tops the list among the prolific authors with 18 contributions and a
credit of 7.92 followed by Lutz Bornmann of Germany with 15 contributions and with a
Observed authors Estimated authors Deviation
No. of
contributions No.
Cumulative
frequency
Relative
frequency
{Sn(x)} No.
Cumulative
frequency
Relative
Frequency
{Fo(x)}
D ¼ Fo(x)-
Sn(x)
Dmax ¼
|Fo(x)-
Sn(x)|
1 252 252 0.8514 252 252 0.7900 −0.0614 0.0614
2 19 271 0.9155 40 292 0.9158 0.0003
3 12 283 0.9561 14 306 0.9588 0.0027
4 5 288 0.9730 6 312 0.9789 0.0059
5 2 290 0.9797 4 316 0.9900 0.0102
6 1 291 0.9831 2 318 0.9968 0.0137
9 2 293 0.9899 1 319 0.9991 0.0093
11 1 294 0.9932 0 319 1.0005 0.0073
15 1 295 0.9966 0 319 1.0011 0.0045
18 1 296 1.0000 0 319 1.0015 0.0015
Total 296 319
K–S statistics ¼ 1.63/SQRT(n ¼ 296) → 0.0947
Table IV.
Kolmogorov–Smirnov
(K–S) goodness-
of-fit test
Productivity
index (PI)
No. of
authors
% of
Authors
Total
authorships
% of
contributors Level of contributions
PI ¼ 0 (1 article) 252 85.14 252 59.43 Occasional producers
0oPIo1
(2–9 articles)
41 13.85 128 30.19 Intermediate producers
PI ⩾ 1
(10 or more articles)
3 1.01 44 10.38 Larger producers
Table V.
Productivity index
and level of
contributions of
authors in HCA in LIS
39
Authorship
trend and
content
analysis

scoring of 6.92. Most of the rank listed authors (6 out of 10) belong the countries of origin
of the journals included in the study (Table I). There is no difference in the rank of first
three authors for both the methods of ranking because most of the works of these authors
are collaborative publications. H-index is defined, h publications received at least h
citations. In general, the larger h, the larger is the diffusion and prestige of one author in
the scientific/professional community. Of the most prolific (n ¼ 10) authors, Loet
Leydesdorff from the Netherland who has occupied the first rank has the highest h-index
(86) followed by Mike Thelwall (73, Rank 4), and Lutz Bornmann (47, Rank 2):
RQ3. Which countries and institutions have made a significant impact on the HCA in LIS
discipline? What are the differences observed in the ranking pattern of countries
and institutions by the direct count and equal credit methods?
The third research question raises three sub-questions. As regards the significant impact
of the countries, 424 authors occurred in the affiliations and they are from 32 countries.
The rank lists of countries are derived from the point of view of the straight count
approach h as well as equal credit scoring. Results show that the Netherlands accounts for
17.2 percent of the affiliating countries of authors and tops the list considering the straight
count approach but as per equal credit method, USA dominates over the Netherland
(25.50) with the highest scoring of 26.51. Indian authors have substantial contributions for
which India has occupied (15th Rank). Though the journals included in the study are
confined to the European continents (the Netherland, UK) and USA, there are significant
contributions from Asian countries (China, Korea, Singapore, India) and from Australia
(n ¼ 9). This geo-spread of publications reflects the internationalization and popularity of
the journals among the LIS academia.
Taking into consideration the first authors of HCA in LIS, it is seen that both USA and
the Netherlands occupy the 1st rank with 27 authors affiliated to each of the countries but
when citations count of publications are considered, USA outnumber (2,533) the Netherlands
(2,099) that means the works of authors affiliated to the USA have greater citation impact in
relation to the Netherlands (Table VII and Figure 2).
Institutional research ranking is of interest to the national granting agencies and the
nations’ administration as well for the allocation of resources. High levels of productivity
can also increase an institution’s standing, reputation and ability to attract and retain
Straight count
approach
Equal credit
method
S. No. Authors H-Index Country No. Rank EC Rank
1 LoetLeydesdorff 86 The Netherlands 18 1 7.92 1
2 Lutz Bornmann 47 Germany 15 2 6.92 2
3 LudoWaltman 26 The Netherlands 11 3 4.58 3
4 Mike Thelwall 73 UK 9 4 3.67 5
5 Nees Jan Van Eck 31 The Netherlands 9 4 3.08 6
6 Ismael Rafols 27 UK 6 5 2.29 7
7 RüdigerMutz 23 Switzerland 5 6 1.58 8
8 Ying Ding 42 USA 5 6 3.75 4
9 Yves Gingras 40 Canada 4 7 1.53 9
10 Felix de MoyaAnegón 43 Spain 4 7 1.42 10
11 3 Authors (each having 4) – 12 7 o 1.4 –
12 12 Authors (each having 3) – 36 8 – –
13 19 Authors (each having 2) – 38 9 – –
14 252 Authors (each having only One) – 252 10 – –
Total 32 424 166.5
Table VI.
Prominent authors of
HCA in LIS
40
PMM
21,1

valuable students and faculty. The ranking of the institutions pertaining to the second part
of the third research question is provided in Table VIII. The rank list of prolific institutions
was derived by applying both straight count and equal credit method. A total of 270
institutions distributed over 32 countries by 424 authors. From the rank list of institutions,
Leiden University, the Netherland convincingly occupies the 1st rank with 41 affiliations
followed by the University of Wolverhampton (UK)-2nd, University of Amsterdam (the
Netherlands)-3rd. Out of 270 affiliated institutions, 93 (34.44 percent) institutions having
only one contributor each, 62 (22.96 percent) institutions having only two contributors each,
51 (18.88 percent) institutions having only three contributors each, 36 (13.33 percent)
institutions having only four contributors each,10 (3.70 percent) institutions having only
five contributors each, 18 (6.66 percent) institutions having only six contributors each. All
the top-ranked institutions are universities and research organizations which indicate that
most of the authors of HCA in LIS discipline are faculties associated with universities and
other research institutes.
No. of authors
affiliated
Equal credit
method Considering first author
S. No. Country No. % Rank EC Rank No. % Rank Citation %
1 The Netherland 73 17.2 1 25.50 2 27 16.3 1 2,099 15.8
2 USA 59 13.9 2 26.51 1 27 16.3 1 2,533 19.1
3 Spain 52 12.3 3 19.42 3 19 11.4 2 1,368 10.3
4 UK 43 10.1 4 17.42 4 13 7.8 4 1,720 12.9
5 Germany 30 7.1 5 11.50 5 15 9.0 3 1,091 8.2
6 Taiwan 29 6.8 6 10.50 6 10 6.0 5 617 4.6
7 Canada 18 4.2 7 6.97 7 9 5.4 6 787 5.9
8 South Korea 14 3.3 8 3.83 12 3 1.8 10 94 0.7
9 China 12 2.8 9 6.17 8 7 4.2 7 333 2.5
10 Korea 11 2.6 10 4.00 11 4 2.4 9 236 1.8
11 Italy 10 2.4 11 4.17 10 4 2.4 9 280 2.1
12 Australia 9 2.1 12 4.33 9 5 3.0 8 632 4.8
13 Finland 8 1.9 13 2.33 14 2 1.2 11 139 1.0
14 Singapore 7 1.7 14 3.00 13 2 1.2 11 120 0.9
15 India 6 1.4 15 2.00 16 1 0.6 12 59 0.4
16 5 countries (each having 4) 20 4.7 – o2.33 – – – – – –
17 4 countries (each having 3) 12 2.8 – – – – – – – –
32 (29 for 1st Authors) 424 100 166.5 166 100 13,292 100.0
Table VII.
Country-wise
contributions
of authors
17.2
13.9
12.3
10.1
7.1 6.8
4.2 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.4
15.8
19.1
10.3
12.9
8.2
4.6
5.9
0.7
2.5 1.8 2.1
4.8
1.0 0.9 0.4
T
h
e
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
U
S
A
S
p
a
i
n
U
K
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
T
a
i
w
a
n
C
a
n
a
d
a
S
o
u
t
h
K
o
r
e
a
C
h
i
n
a
K
o
r
e
a
I
t
a
l
y
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e
I
n
d
i
a
% (Considering All Authors) % (Considering 1st Authors) % of Citation
Figure 2.
Percentile of Country-
wise contributions of
Authors (All authors
v/s first authors with
citations)
41
Authorship
trend and
content
analysis

The third part of RQ3 is concerned with the differences observed in the ranking pattern of
countries and institutions by direct count and equal credit methods. The straight count
approach is considered for ranking country-wise productivity; the Netherlands occupies 1st
position followed by USA and Spain but in the equal credit method the USA ranks
1st among the countries followed by the Netherlands and Spain. Similarly as regards the
institutional productivity considering both the approaches Leiden University from the
Netherlands leads among the institutions followed by the University of Wolverhampton
(UK) and University of Amsterdam (the Netherlands). The results indicate that the
Netherland has significant contributions to the HCA in LIS domain as it has steadily
maintained the first position in both country and institution wise productivity:
RQ4. What are the areas of research of HCAs?
HCAs in LIS are categorized into 14 key areas of research based on the method of content
analysis and presented in Table IX. The research areas are assigned by analyzing the title
and content of the articles. The HCA is greatly influenced by mapping and ranking
approaches, technological developments as well as social networking. Four research areas
(research impact measurement and research collaboration, social networking, research
metrics, and citation-based studies) account for 71 percent of the TC while other ten areas
account for 29 percent of the TC. Some popular research areas of LIS like open access,
information seeking behavior, information sharing, information retrieval, e-learning, user
study and user education, information sources and services have only 23 articles that
received 15 percent citations whereas subject areas like analytical studies, KM & CRM and
Visualization tools have received 14 percent citations.
Subcategory analysis of the dominant/emerging areas of research
A detailed look at the four dominant research areas that accounted for 71 percent of
citations reveals some interesting insights about the research trend of HCA in LIS.
Research impact measurement and research collaboration is the most potential area of
research on which 43 articles have contributed that account for 3,899 citations. Under this area,
studies like the ranking of universities and other research institutions, mapping of various
Straight count
approach
Equal Credit
Method
S. No Institute Country No. Rank EC Rank
1 Leiden University The Netherland 41 1 11.83 1
2 University of Wolverhampton UK 21 2 8.50 2
3 University of Amsterdam The Netherland 20 3 8.92 3
4 Indiana University USA 17 4 7.38 4
5 University of Granada Spain 16 5 4.33 6
6 Max Planck Society Germany 11 6 5.08 5
7 KAIST South Korea 7 7 1.55 10
8 National Cheng Kung University Taiwan 7 7 2.75 7
9 Pohang University of S&T Korea 7 7 2.60 8
10 Université de Montréal Canada 7 7 2.37 9
11 3 Institutions (each having 6 Authors) – 18 8 – –
16 93 Institutions (each having One only) – 93 13 – –
Total 32 424 166.5
Table VIII.
Institution-wise
contributions of
authors
42
PMM
21,1

impact indicators, mapping societal impact of research, mapping of collaboration among
authors, institutions, and countries, assessing scientific collaboration among countries on
specific subjects are the sub-areas on which growing interest is perceived.
Social networking is the second largest area of research on which works related to
sentiment analysis, blog analysis, analysis of social media, comment analysis of YouTube
videos, and Facebook analysis found to be the emerging areas of research and have received
2,381 citations.
Research metrics is another favorable area of research on which 27 articles received 1,635
citations. The sub-categories are altmetric analysis, bibliometric analysis, co-word analysis,
patent analysis, scientometric analysis and webometrics analysis.
Citation-based studies like fractional counting of citations and impact factor, references
made and citations received, citation network and citation impact have also attracted the
attention of the LIS community among other key areas of research:
RQ5. What is the distribution pattern of the top 25 highly cited works? Are they evenly
distributed among the four journals or these are concentrated in only one journal
and what subject areas do the top 25 HCAs focus on?
From the distribution pattern of top 26 highly cited papers, the highest number of articles
(14; 54 percent) are published in JASIST, five articles each published in Scientometrics and
Journal of Informetrics and two articles in Online Information Review. Most of the papers
(20; 77 percent) are collaborative works whereas only six papers are done by single authors. It
is interesting to note that all the 26 articles have received more than 100 citations and the
number of citations for each of these articles ranged from 113 to 441(M ¼ 174.3, SD¼ 77.2).
As regards the distribution of citations of the top 26 highly cited papers, JASIST has received
55.75 percent citations followed by Scientometrics (20.0 percent), Journal of Informetrics
(18.7 percent) and Online Information Review (5.5 percent). The highest contribution to the top
26 highly cited papers is made by Lutz Bornmann who along with the co-authors contributed
four papers (JASIST-2; JOI-2) followed by Loet Leydesdorff (JASIST-2; JOI-1) and Mike
Thelwall (JASIST-2; JOI-1) who contributed 3(three papers) each. It is interesting to note that
Loet Leydesdorff has co-authored with Lutz Bornmann in all the three papers whereas Mike
Thelwall is associated with his colleagues from the same university (UK) in two papers and in
another paper, he is associated with two other co-authors from Canada. These three authors
S. No. Key areas of research
No of
articles
% of
articles
No. of
citations
% of
citations
1 Research Impact Measurement & Research
Collaboration 43 25.9 3,899 29.34
2 Social Networking 27 16.27 2,381 17.91
3 Research Metrics 25 15.06 1,635 12.3
4 Citation-Based Studies 24 14.46 1,495 11.25
5 Analytical Studies 11 6.63 943 7.1
6 Knowledge Management & CRM 7 4.22 389 2.93
7 Science Mapping Softwares, Visualization tools 6 3.61 566 4.26
8 Open Access & Open Access Journals 5 3.01 447 3.36
9 ISB & e -shopping 4 2.41 348 2.62
10 Information Sharing 3 1.81 433 3.26
11 Information Retrieval 3 1.81 182 1.37
12 e-Learning/e Resources 3 1.81 213 1.6
13 User Study/User Education 3 1.81 156 1.17
14 Information Sources and Services 2 1.2 204 1.53
166 100 13,291 100
Table IX.
Key areas of LIS
research
43
Authorship
trend and
content
analysis

are also placed among the ten prolific authors. Looking at the research themes of top 26 HCA,
it is seen that the papers are highly influenced by the social web and there is a growing
interest in national and international comparisons of research organizations as well as metric
studies. As a result of which, some new areas like sentiment analysis of tweets, social web,
effect of social network, trend analysis of twitter data, research evaluation, Leiden ranking
and metric studies are in the academic marketplace of LIS domain (Table X).
Conclusion and key findings
This study systematically identifies highly cited papers in LIS from four top-ranked (impact
factor) journals on the basis of h5-index and primarily focused on the authorship trend,
collaboration pattern, productive institutions, countries, the hot topics and the specific
research areas of top 25 highly cited works. Some interesting findings were derived relating
to the questions posed. The summary of the findings for the RQs presented below:
All the 166 HCAs have received 13,287 citations with an ACPP of 80. The citation range
across the journals varies from minimum 28 (OIR) to maximum 441(JASIST) and as regards
the ACPP among the journals it is found to be highest in case of the journal JASIST (100.3).
RQ1: the highly cited papers are mostly contributed collaboratively as 79.52 percent of
the total works fall under this category. Among the collaborative works the contributions of
two authored papers are more (36.14 percent) in comparison to three, four, five and more
than five authored works. The collaboration co-efficient of authors is highest in case of the
journal JOI which is 0.89. The dominance of collaborative research is clearly reflected
through the HCA in all the four journals.
RQ2: spells out whether it is straight count approach or equal credit scoring, it is Loet
Leydesdorff from the Netherlands who tops the list among the prolific authors as the author
has highest contributions individually as well as collaboratively. The author has also
collaborated at various author positions (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th). It is interesting to note that out
of the four top-ranked journals, the author has consistently contributed in three journals,
namely, JASIST, Scientometrics and Informetrics. When h-index of the authors are considered
again it is Loet Leydesdorff who has the highest h-index (86) among top ten authors which
reflects the scholarship and best research impact of the said author.
RQ3: looking at the 32 countries of affiliation, the Netherlands and USA are the dominant
countries considering the straight count approach and equal credit method, respectively.
Considering the first authors of HCA both USA and the Netherlands occupy the 1st rank with
27 authors affiliated to each of the countries but when citations count of publications are
considered, USA (2,533) outnumbers the Netherland (2,099) that means the works of authors
affiliated to USA have greater citation impact in relation to the Netherlands.
RQ4: in order to provide a roadmap of the published articles that have been highly successful
across the four journals, the research areas of all the articles are analyzed and it is observed that
discipline of LIS is dynamic in nature as it has been boosted with new areas of research.
Publications on only four research areas, namely, research impact measurement and research
collaboration, social networking, research metrics and citation-based studies account for 71
percent of the TC received that clearly reflects that there is a paradigm shift in the discipline.
RQ5: all the articles under top 25 category have received more than 100 citations. Highest
contribution to the top 25 highly cited papers made by Lutz Bornmann with four articles
followed by Loet Leydesdorff and Mike Thelwall with three articles each. It is interesting to
note that Loet Leydesdorff has co-authored with Lutz Bornmann in all three papers. These
three authors are also placed among the ten prolific authors. Looking into the research
themes of top 25 HCAs, it is seen that LIS discipline is highly influenced by internet, web
resources and social networking tools, ranking indicators, visualization tools as a result of
which many new areas like sentiment analysis of tweets, trend analysis of twitter data,
research evaluation and research collaboration, Leiden ranking, SCImago institutions
44
PMM
21,1

Rank Journal name Title of the articles
Year of
publication
Times
cited Authors
Key areas of
research
1 JASIST Sentiment in Twitter Events 2011 441 Mike Thelwall, Kevan Buckley and
Georgios Paltoglou
Sentiment analysis
of twitter
2 Scientometrics Negative results are disappearing from most
disciplines and countries
2011 304 Daniele Fanelli Research evaluation
3 JASIST Sentiment Strength Detection for the Social Web 2012 296 Mike Thelwall, Kevan Buckley and
Georgios Paltoglou
Sentiment analysis
of social web
4 JASIST The conundrum of sharing research data 2012 270 Christine L. Borgman Sharing of research
data
5 JOI Approaches to understanding and measuring
interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review
of the literature
2011 245 Caroline S. Wagnera,J. David Roessnera,
KamauBobba, Julie Thompson Kleinb, Kevin
W. Boyackc, Joann Keytond, Ismael Rafolse,
Katy Börnerf
Literature review on
interdisciplinary
scientific research
6 JOI Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical
considerations
2011 224 LudoWaltman, Nees Jan van Eck, Thed N. van
Leeuwen, Martijn S. Visser, Anthony
F.J. van Raan
Crown indicator for
citation count
7 Scientometrics Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone
to journal certification?
2011 179 Jerome K. Vanclay Impact factor study
8 JASIST The effect of social network sites on adolescents’
social and academic development: Current theories
and controversies
2011 173 June Ahn Effect of social
network for
academic
development of
adolescents
9 JASIST The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection,
indicators, and interpretation
2012 167 LudoWaltman, Clara Calero-Medina,
JoostKosten, Ed C.M. Noyons, Robert J.W.
Tijssen, Nees Jan van Eck, Thed N. van
Leeuwen, Anthony F.J. van Raan, Martijn S.
Visser,
Paul Wouters
Leiden ranking for
universities
(continued)
Table
X.
Top
25
highly
cited
works
45
Authorship
trend
and
content
analysis

Year of
publication
Times
cited Authors
Key areas of
research
10 Scientometrics Validating online reference managers for scholarly
impact measurement
2012 163 XuemeiLi , Mike Thelwall , Dean Giustini Measuring research
impact through
online reference
managers
11 JASIST Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis,
and cooperative study among tools
2011 162 M.J. Cobo, A.G. López-Herrera,
E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera
Tools on science
mapping
12 JASIST Hip and trendy: Characterizing emerging trends on
Twitter
2011 153 MorNaaman,Hila Becker, Luis Gravano Trend analysis of
twitter data
13 JOI Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on
the performance of scholars: A correlation and
regression analysis of performance measures and
social network analysis measures
2011 142 AlirezaAbbasia, JörnAltmannb, Liaquat
Hossain
Effects of
authorship network
14 JASIST Bias in peer review 2013 139 Carole J. Lee,Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang,
Blaise Cronin
Bias in peer review
15 Scientometrics Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research
Database: administrative health care database as
study object in bibliometrics
2011 134 Yu-Chun Chen, Hsiao-Yun Yeh, Jau-Ching Wu,
Ingo Haschler ,Tzeng-Ji Chen, Thomas Wetter
Bibliometric
analysis
16 JASIST Information search and retrieval in microblogs 2011 130 Miles Efron IR in microblog
17 OIR Age, gender and income: do they really moderate
online shopping behavior?
2011 128 Blanca Hernańdez, Julio Jimeńez ,
M. Jose´ Martıń
e shopping behavior
18 JASIST The weakening relationship between the impact
factor and paper’s citations in the digital age
2012 126 George A. Lozano, Vincent Larivière,
Yves Gingras
IF vs Citations
18 Scientometrics Agent-based computing from multi-agent systems
to agent-based models: a visual survey
2011 126 MuazNiazi, Amir Hussain Network analysis &
visualization
analysis (Citespace)
(continued)
Table
X.
46
PMM
21,1

Year of
publication
Times
cited Authors
Key areas of
research
19 JASIST Trustworthiness in mHealth information services:
An assessment of a hierarchical model with
mediating and moderating effects using partial least
squares(PLS)
2011 124 ShahriarAkter, John D’Ambra, Pradeep Ray Mobile health
information services
20 OIR The moderating effect of customer perceived value
on online shopping behavior
2011 123 Hsin Hsin Chang and Hsin-Wei Wang e shopping behavior
21 JOI The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report
of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011
2012 120 Lutz Bornmann, Felix de Moya Anegón,
LoetLeydesdorff
SCImago
Institutions Ranking
22 JASIST Turning the tables on citation analysis one more
time: Principles for comparing sets of documents
2011 118 LoetLeydesdorff, Lutz Bornmann,
RüdigerMutz, Tobias Opthof
Citation analysis
23 JOI A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting
correlations between the h-index and 37 different
h-index variants
2011 117 Lutz Bornmann, RüdigerMutzb, Sven E. Hugb,
Hans-Dieter Daniel
Analysis of h-index
variants
24 JASIST Integrated impact indicators compared with impact
factor: An alternative research design with policy
implications
2011 114 LoetLeydesdorff, Lutz Bornmann Integrated impact
indicators vs impact
factor
25 JASIST Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network
analysis of co-authorship and citation networks
2011 113 Ying Ding Research
collaboration
Table
X.
47
Authorship
trend
and
content
analysis

ranking, impact factor, citation-based studies and h-index variants are in the academic
market place of LIS domain which have attracted the attention of the scholarly community
and fetched high citations.
Implications
The examination and analysis of classic characteristics HCA is a well-established research
area across many scholarly domains. Taking inputs from such studies, the present article
made an analysis of the most HCAs of the four top-rated journals (on the basis of the
h5-index of Google Scholar) of LIS. The study provides various insights for researchers,
academicians and practitioners in LIS as it portrays the research trends and patterns in LIS.
It provides a set of HCAs which will be helpful for the new researchers to acquaint themselves
with the type of contributions, data sets utilized, approaches made and research methods
applied in these papers. The results will help practitioners to know the highest quality work in
specific areas of LIS and to utilize the techniques, tools reported in those studies. The content
analysis of HCA will assist researchers to identify the active and more impactful areas of focus.
References
Akhavan, P. et al. (2007), “Major trends in knowledge management research: a bibliometric study”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 1-16, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=3173980
Antonakis, J. and Lalive, R. (2008), “Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp Versus the Hirsch h”, Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 956-969,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20802
Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Liu, Y. and Schriesheim, C. (2014), “What makes articles highly cited?”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 152-179, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.20
13.10.014
Bauer, J., Leydesdorff, L. and Bornmann, L. (2016), “Highly cited papers in library and information
science LIS: authors, institutions, and network structures”, Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 67 No. 12, pp. 3095-3100, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1002/asi.23568
Blessinger, K. and Hrycaj, P. (2010), “Highly cited articles in library and information science: an
analysis of content and authorship trends”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 156-162, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.12.007
Chua, C., Cao, L., Cousins, K. and Straub, D.W. (2002), “Measuring researcher-production in information
systems”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, doi: 10.17705/
1jais.00026.
Cronin, B. (1984), The Citation Process, The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific
Communication, Taylor Graham, London, available at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984cprs.
book…..C
Csako, G. (2007), “Analysis of the most highly cited articles from the 50-year history of CCA”, Clinica
Chimica Acta; International Journal of Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 375 Nos 1-2, pp. 43-48, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2006.07.020
Diamond, A.M. (1986), “What is a citation worth?”, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 200-215, available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/145797
Elsinghorst, T.A.M. (2002), “Analysis of the 96 most often cited articles published in veterinary
journals in 2002 and 2003”, The Veterinary Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 183-189, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2002.9695199
García-García, P., López-Muñoz, F., Callejo, J., Martín-Agueda, B. and Alamo, C. (2005), “Evolution of
Spanish scientific production in international obstetrics and gynecology journals during
the period 1986–2002”, Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Vol. 123
No. 2, pp. 50-156.
48
PMM
21,1

Garfield, E. (1955), “Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through
association of ideas”, Science, Vol. 122 No. 3159, pp. 108-111, available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.122.3159.108
Garfield, E. (1979), Citation Indexing – Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and
Humanities, Wiley, New York, NY.
Garfield, E. (1982), “The ethics of scientific publication: authorship attribution and citation amnesia”,
Current Contents, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 622-626.
Garfield, E. and Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992), “Citation data: their use as quantitative indicators for
science and technology evaluation and policy-making”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 321-327, available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/19.5.321
Garousi, V. and Fernandes, J.M. (2016), “Highly-cited papers in software engineering: the top-100”,
Information and Software Technology, Vol. 71 No. 2016, pp. 108-128, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.infsof.2015.11.003
Geim, A.K. and Novoselov, K.S. (2007), “The rise of graphene”, Nature Mater, Vol. 2007 No. 6,
pp. 183-191, available at: www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814287005_0002
Hamrick, T.A., Fricker, R.D. and Brown, G.G. (2010), “Assessing what distinguishes highly cited from
less-cited papers published in interfaces”, Interfaces, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 454-464, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.1100.0527
Hancock, D.J., Rix-Lièvre, G. and Côté, J. (2015), “Citation network analysis of research on sport officials:
a lack of interconnectivity”, International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 95-105, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2015.1022202
Ho, Y.-S. (2014), “A bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles in materials science”, Current Science,
Vol. 107 No. 9, pp. 1565-1572.
Ivanović, D. and Ho, Y.-S. (2014), “Highly cited articles in the information science and library science
category in social science citation index: a bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Librarianship and
Information Science, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 36-46, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614537514
Knudson, D. (2015), “Citation rate of highly-cited papers in 100 kinesiology-related journals”,
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 44-50, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.988336
Kostoff, R.N., Barth, R.B. and Lau, C.G.Y. (2008), “Quality vs. quantity of publications in
nanotechnology field from the people’s republic of China”, Chinese Science Bulletin, Vol. 53 No. 8,
pp. 1272-1280, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-008-0183-y
Levitt, J.M. and Thelwall, M. (2009), “The most highly cited library and information science articles:
interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns”, Scientometrics, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 45-67,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1927-1
Lowry, P.B., Karuga, G.G. and Richardson, V.J. (2007), “Assessing leading institutions, faculty, and
articles in premier information systems research journals”, Communications of the Association
for Information Systems (CAIS), Vol. 20 No. 16, pp. 142-203.
Mahesh, G. and Panwar, Y. (2013), “Highly cited paper of IJBB: a report”, Indian Journal of Biochemistry
& Biophysics, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 247-248.
Moral-Muñoz, J.A., Cobo, M.J., Chiclana, F., Collop, A. and Herrera-Viedma, E. (2016), “Analyzing highly
cited papers in intelligent transportation systems”, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 993-1001, available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2015.2494533
Nonaka, I. and Peltokorpi, V. (2006), “Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge management: a review
of 20 top articles”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 73-82, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.251
O’Leary, D.E. (2007), “Human systems management: the most cited papers”, Human Systems
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 153-156.
Ponce, F.A. and Lozano, A.M. (2010), “Highly cited works in neurosurgery part I: the 100 top-cited
papers in neurosurgical journals”, Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 223-232, available
at: https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.JNS091599
49
Authorship
trend and
content
analysis

Price, K.W., Floyd, R.G., Fagan, T.K. and Smithson, K. (2011), “Journal article citation classics in school
psychology: analysis of the most cited articles in five school psychology journals”, Journal of
School Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 649-667, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.001
Ryan, T.P. and Woodall, W.H. (2005), “The most-cited statistical papers”, Journal of Applied Statistics,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 461-474, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760500079373
Serenko, A. and Dumay, J. (2015a), “Citation classics published in knowledge management journals.
Part I: articles and their characteristics”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 401-431, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0220
Serenko, A. and Dumay, J. (2015b), “Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Part
II: studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar effect”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1335-1355, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2015-0086
Serenko, A. and Dumay, J. (2017), “Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Part
III: author survey”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 330-354, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2016-0300
Sevukan, R., Nagarajan, M. and Sharma, J. (2007), “Research output of faculties of plant sciences in
central universities of India: a bibliometric study”, Annals of Library and Information Sciences,
Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 129-139, available at: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/3229
Shah, T.A., Gul, S. and Gaur, R.C. (2015), “Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of library and
information science”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 458-468,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2014-0134
Smith, D.R. (2009), “Highly cited articles in environmental and occupational health, 1919–1960”,
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, Vol. 64 No. S1, pp. 32-42, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1080/19338240903286743
Further reading
Aversa, E.S. (1985), “Citation patterns of highly cited papers and their relationship to literature aging: a
study of the working literature”, Scientometrics, Vol. 7 Nos 3-6, pp. 383-389, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF02017156
Bornmann, L. (2014), “How are excellent (highly cited) papers defined in bibliometrics? A quantitative
analysis of the literature”, available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.5986.pdf
Bornmann, L., Stefaner, M., de MoyaAnegón, F. and Mutz, R. (2014), “Ranking and mapping of
universities and research-focused institutions worldwide based on highly-cited papers: a
visualisation of results from multi-level models”, Online Information Review, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 43-58, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-12-2012-0214
Garfield, E. (1992), “Psychology research, 1986–1990: a citationist perspective on the highest impact
papers, institutions, and authors”, Current Contents, Vol. 15, pp. 155-165.
Hodge, D.R., Lacasse, J.R. and Benson, O. (2012), “Influential publications in social work discourse: the
100 most highly cited articles in disciplinary journals: 2000-09”, British Journal of Social Work,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 765-782, doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr093.
Krawczyk, M. (2017), “Are all researchers male? Gender misattributions in citations”, Scientometrics,
Vol. 110 No. 3, pp. 1397-1402, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2192-y
Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R. and Cronin, B. (2012), “A bibliometric chronicling of library and information
science’s first hundred years”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 997-1016, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22645
Ma, Z. and Yu, K.-H. (2010), “Research paradigms of contemporary knowledge management studies:
1998–2007”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 175-189, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/13673271011032337
Meyer, T. and Spencer, J. (1996), “A citation analysis study of library science: who cites librarians?”,
College & Research Libraries, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 23-33, available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.5860/crl_57_01_23
50
PMM
21,1

Mukherjee, B. (2009), “The hyperlinking pattern of open-access journals in library and information
science: a cited citing reference study”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 113-125, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.12.001
Naseer, M.M. and Mahmood, K. (2014), “Subject dispersion of LIS research in Pakistan”, Library &
Information Science Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 114-119, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lisr.2013.10.005
Pečlin, S. and Juznic, P. (2014), “Highly cited papers in Slovenia”, Teorija in praksa, Vol. 51 No. 5,
pp. 972-983.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2013), “The intellectual core and impact of the knowledge management
academic discipline”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 137-155, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311300840
Tsay, M. (2013), “Knowledge input for the domain of information science: a bibliometric and citation
analysis study”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 203-220, available at: https://doi.org/10.110
8/00012531311314005
Van Noorden, R., Maher, B. and Nuzzo, R. (2014), “The top 100 papers”, Nature News, Vol. 514 No. 7524,
pp. 550-553, available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/514550a
About the authors
Jyotshna Sahoo is currently serving as Associate Professor and Head in the Department of Library and
Information Science; and Dean in Humanities and Social Science, Khallikote University. She has
authored three books and 35+ research papers. She was awarded JRF from the Department of Culture
and ICSSR Doctoral Fellowship. She was the Project Director of “Mapping of Research Productivity in
the fields Social Sciences in Odisha” in 2010, ICSSR, MHRD, Govt of India and currently is Project
Director of “Methodological Developments and Innovations in Social Science Research: An Assessment
of the Research Methods Employed in the Disciplines of Political Science and Sociology.”
Basudev Mohanty has been working at the Institute of Physics (IOP), Bhubaneswar, since
December 2016. Prior to joining IOP, he was at IIT, Bhubaneswar, for four years and in Infosys Ltd for
12 years as Lead Librarian. He has also worked as a Programer-cum-Training Officer in DPEP under
the Department of School and Mass Education, Govt of Orissa. He has published more than 30+
research papers and presented papers at many seminars and conferences. He has received many
accolades for his philanthropic and professional activities. Basudev Mohanty is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: basudev@iopb.res.in
Oshin Biswal has completed her Masters in Library and Information Science from Sambalpur
University, Burla, India. She had worked as Library Trainee at Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology,
Sarang, Dhenkanal, India.
Dr Nrusingh Kumar Dash is currently working as Librarian at Silicon Institute of Technology,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, since 2002. He has published more than 20+ research papers and
presented papers at many seminars and conferences.
Jayanta Kumar Sahu has completed MPhil in Library and Information Science from Sambalpur
University, Burla, India. He had worked as Library Professional Trainee at Indian Institutes of
Technology (IIT) Bhubaneswar and National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER),
Bhubaneswar. He has also served as Project Assistant for the Indian Council of Social Science
Research (ICSSR), New Delhi Responsive Research Project entitled “Methodological Developments
and Innovations in Social Science Research: An Assessment of the Research Methods Employed
in the Disciplines of Political Science and Sociology” under the guidance of Project Director,
Dr Jyotshna Sahoo.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
51
Authorship
trend and
content
analysis

Authorship Trend And Content Analysis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Authorship Trend And Content Analysis

Similar to Authorship Trend And Content Analysis (20)

More from Martha Brown

More from Martha Brown (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Authorship Trend And Content Analysis