Evaluating LIS Doctoral Programs on the Basis of Citations: A Study of Universities in Southern States in India

1. Evaluating LIS Doctoral Programs
on the Basis of Citations:
A Study of Universities in Southern States in India
Vasantha Raju N.
Librarian
Govt. First Grade College
Talakadu-571122
vasanthrz@gmail.com
N.S. Harinarayana
Professor
Dept. of Studies in Library and
Information Science
University of Mysore, Mysore
ns.harinarayana@gmail.com
Paper Presented at the 5th IATLIS International Conference of the Indian Association of Teachers of Library
and Information Science on “Restructuring of Library and Information Science Education in the Internet Era”
held at Pondicherry University, Puducherry on 19-20, December, 2019.

2. Introduction
 The first short term training course in LIS was started in the year
1911 by W.A. Borden with the support of Maharaja Sayajirao
Gaikwad II in Baroda
 S.R. Ranganathan gave an impetus for the growth of LIS
Education as an academic discipline by starting a diploma course
in library science in 1931. Since then it has been thriving strong
and completed its hundredth year in 2011.
 Today as many as 181 universities have LIS programmes and 93
of them have been offering doctoral programs in India

3. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
1950-50
1960-69
1970-79
1980-89
1990-99
2000-09
2010-12
2
2
16
103
395
804
432*
NUMBERS
DECADE-WISEGROWTH
Decade-Wise Growth of LIS PhDs in India
* Data is for only three years
Adapted from: “Doctoral Research in Library and Information Science in India: Trends and Issues” by Shashi Prabha Singh and
Parveen Babbar, 2014, DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 34(2), p. 173.

4. The increasing output in LIS doctoral degrees in India has also
brought the issue of quantity versus quality debate to the fore.
Many studies have discussed the decreasing intellectual rigour in
LIS research in India
In this Backdrop
In this study we have tried to evaluate and rank LIS doctoral
programs offered by Universities of Southern States in India by
using a combined number of citations to faculty publications.

5. Methodological Approach Followed
This study is largely based on the works of
Allen M Maier M and Grimes D, Evaluating
doctoral programs in communication on the
basis of citations, The Electronic Journal of
Communication, 22 (1 & 2) 2012.

6. Study Methodology-1
 Step-1: Selection of Universities Offering Doctoral Program in LIS
 University Grant Commission (UGC) Website –Data Source for Identifying
Universities offering LIS Program in South Indian States
 Universities Offering LIS Doctoral Programs either through Regular /Distance
Mode
 Documentation Research & Training Centre (DRTC), AVVM Sri Pushpam College
and Bishop Hebbar College- Excluded from the Study
 Mahatma Gandhi (MG) University was also excluded from the study because
of lack of faculty information
 26 South Indian LIS Schools or Departments were part of the final data
collection

7. Study Methodology-2
 Step-2: Collection of Faculty Information
 University Website Was Used as a Major Source for Collecting the
Faculty Information. All the 26 Universities have made their faculty list
available on their websites.
 Each university website was visited from 08 Jan 2019 to 12 Jan 2019 to
collect faculty information such as name and designation of the faculty
 The study considered Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant
Professors who have been appointed on full-time or on permanent
basis.
 In all 103 LIS faculty members working in different capacity (Professors
(31), Associate Professors (14) and Assistant Professors (58)) in
different universities were considered for collecting their research
publications and citation data.

8. Study Methodology-3
 Step-2: Collection of Publications and Citation Information
 Publish or Perish 6 application was used to collect the faculty citation data
 The Publish or Perish 6 Google Scholar Profile Query was used to identify faculty
publications and citation profile.
 Total number of papers
 total number of citations
 Hirsch's h-index and related parameters
 Average citations per paper, citations per author, papers per author, and citations per year and
other citation related data were collected
 Most of the LIS faculty had Google Scholar profile which made the data collection simpler.
 Whenever there was some doubt with regard to the retrieved faculty publications and
citation metrics, faculty CV and publication list were cross-verified.

9. Result-1
Ranking of LIS Doctoral Programs on the Basis of
Citations

10. SL No Name of the University Ranking Number of
Citations
Number
of Publications
Number
of Faculty
Average
Citations per
Publication
Average
Citation Per
Faculty
1 University of Mysore 1 1282 485 4 2.6 321
2 Alagappa University 2 1211 162 2 7.5 606
3 Bharathidasan University 3 884 693 6 1.3 147
4 Pondicherry University 4 733 148 5 5.0 147
5 Karnatak University 5 556 207 5 2.7 111
6 Tumkur University 6 550 90 5 6.1 110
7 Annamalai University 7 460 337 18 1.4 26
8 Mangalore University 8 403 127 3 3.2 134
9 Kuvempu University 9 386 111 4 3.5 97
10 Central University of Tamil Nadu 10 308 90 5 3.4 62
11 University of Calicut 11 291 55 2 5.3 146
12 Gulbarga University 12 248 58 3 4.3 83
13 Periyar University 13 242 199 6 1.2 40
14 Akkamahadevi Women's
University
14 157 131 3 1.2 52
15 Rani Channamma University 15 144 64 4 2.3 36

11. SL No Name of the University Ranking Number of
Citations
Number
of
Publications
Number
of
Faculty
Average
Citations per
Publication
Average
Citation Per
Faculty
16 Bangalore University 16 128 61 5 2.1 26
17 Osmania University 17 76 40 3 1.9 25
18 Madurai Kamaraj University 18 62 57 3 1.1 21
19 Dravidian University 19 30 58 3 0.5 10
20 Sri Venkateshwara University 20 24 91 3 0.3 8
21 Andhra University 21 18 7 1 2.6 8
22 University of Kerala 22 15 11 1 1.4 15
23 University of Madras 23 13 12 3 1.1 4
24 Bharathiar University 24 1 21 4 0.0 0
25 Sri Krishnadevraya University 25 0 0 1 0.0 0
26 Kannur University =25 0 0 1 0.0 0

12. Result-2
Individual Faculty Ranking on the Basis of Citations

13. SL No Faculty Name University Ranking* Total
Citations*
Total
Publications
Average
Citations
per
Paper
h-index
1 Thanuskodi S. Alagappa University 1 927 105 8.83 18
2 Ramaiah C.K. Pondicherry University 2 554 87 6.37 12
3 Sampath Kumar B.T. Tumkur University 3 487 63 7.73 12
4 Harinarayana N.S. University of Mysore 4 356 142 2.51 07
5 Mallinath Kumbar University of Mysore 5 338 150 2.25 10
6 Kumbar B.D. Karnatak University 6 335 101 3.32 10
7 Khaiser Jahan Begum University of Mysore 7 329 134 2.46 7
8 Biradar B.S. Kuvempu University 8 309 55 5.62 9
9 Shivalingaiah Mangalore University 9 290 37 7.84 9
10 Jeyshankar R. Alagappa University 10 284 57 4.98 8
11 Mohamed Haneefa K. University of Calicut 11 282 43 6.56 7
12 Chandrashekara M University of Mysore 12 259 59 4.39 9
13 Balasubramani R. Bharathidasan University 13 257 87 2.95 10
14 Sudhier K. G. Pillai Central University of Tamil
Nadu
14 220 58 3.79 9
15 Surulinathi M. Bharathidasan University 15 214 252 0.85 8
16 Radhakrishnan N. Periyar University 16 175 75 2.33 9
17 Hadagali G.S. Karnatak University 17 163 56 2.91 8
18 Ranganathan C. Bharathidasan University =17 163 89 0.55 6
19 Amsaveni N. Bharathidasan University 19 160 144 1.11 7
20 Sevukan R. Pondicherry University 20 137 25 5.48 5
* First 20 Authors on the basis of their citations and rankings have been listed here. For complete list please go through the full-text of the article

14. Result-3
Number of Citations Vs Number of Ph.Ds

15. SL No. University Name Ranking* Number of
Citations
SL No. University Name** Number
of Ph.Ds
Ranking
1 University of Mysore 1 1282 1 Jiwaji University (Madhya
Pradesh)
97 1
2 Alagappa University 2 1211 2 Annamalai University (Tamil
Nadu)
88 2
3 Bharathidasan University 3 884 3 Karnatak University (Karnataka) 84 3
4 Pondicherry University 4 733 4 University of Pune
(Maharashtra)
67 4
5 Karnatak University 5 556 5 University of Madras (Tamil
Nadu)
63 5
6 Tumkur University 6 550 6 Andhra University (Andhra
Pradesh)
61 6
7 Annamalai University 7 460 7 University of Delhi (New Delhi) 58 7
8 Mangalore University 8 403 8 Panjab University (Chandigarh) 54 8
9 Kuvempu University 9 386 9 University of Rajasthan
(Rajasthan)
52 9
10 Central University of Tamil
Nadu
10 308 10 Nagpur University (Maharashtra) 51 10
11 University of Calicut 11 291 11 University of Mysore (Karnataka) 51 10
* Top 11 universities on the basis of their citations have been listed here for comparison
** List of University Wise Distributions of Ph.Ds in LIS was obtained from Singh & Babbar (2014) study on Doctoral Research in Library
and Information Science in India: Issues and Challenges. The list includes both North and South Indian LIS Schools which have produced
highest number of doctoral theses in LIS. The data was limited to total number of Ph.Ds awarded across universities in India till 2012.

16. Result-4
Correlations Between ranking, citations, faculty
size, and average number of citations per
publication and per faculty

17. Variables Mean (SD) Ranking Number
of
Citations
Number of
Publications
Number
of
Faculty
Average
Citations
Per
Publication
Average
Citations
Per
Faculty
Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of
Citations
316(365) -0.90*
Number of
Publications
128(159) -0.69* 0.73*
Number of
Faculty
4(3) -0.41* 0.24* 0.48*
Average
Citations
Per Publication
2(2) -0.68* 0.60* 0.04** -0.03**
Average Citation
Per Faculty 86(129) -0.70* 0.86* 0.40* -0.06** 0.71*
* indicates significant, ** indicates not significant, p <.05

18. Research Findings
 The individual faculty ranking in this study indicates clear pattern of strong research culture in some universities.
University of Mysore has four (all the faculty) faculty in the ranking list so as Alagappa university with its two
faculty in the list and so on. This indicates that strong research culture influences faculty to engage in more
research activities.
 The surprising result of the study was some of the newly established universities were figured in top ten ranking
of the LIS doctoral programs in southern states (e.g., Pondicherry University with 4th Rank, Tumkur University in
the 6th position and Central University of Tamil Nadu with 10th Rank. This can be attributed for the relocation of
faculty from one university to another university for better career opportunities.
 The correlation analysis of the study found that there is strong positive relationship between number of faculty
and number of publications. While collecting the data it was found that some of the LIS departments have only
one faculty member. This has made strong negative impact on research publications. because of severe faculty
shortage publications and citation profiles have been on the decline of some of the oldest LIS Schools.
 comparison with number of combined citations of faculty with that of number of Ph.Ds awarded in LIS in India
shows that some of the top ranking LIS departments which have received good number of citations have also
produced good number of Ph.Ds over the years.

19. References
Varalakshmi V, Library and information science education in South India: perspective and challenges, DESIDOC Journal of Library
and Information Technology, 30 (5) (2010) 32-47.
Singh S, Library and information science education in India: issues and trends, Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science,
8 (2) (2003) 1-17.
Singh S P and Babbar P, Doctoral research in library and information science in India: trends and issues, DESIDOC Journal of Library
& Information Technology, 34 (2) (2014) 170-180.
Chandrashekara M and Ramsesh, Library and information research in India. Paper Presented at the Asia-Pacific Conference on
Library & Information Education & Practice, Japan (2009). Available at http://www.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/a-
liep2009/proceedings/Papers/a65.pdf
Satija M, Whom do we surve: docotoral research in library and information science ressearch in India, DESIDOC Bulletin of
Information Technology, 18 (1) (1998) 19-24.
Satija M, What ails doctoral research in library and information science in India? DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information
Technology, 30 (5) (2010) 61-66.
Neuendor K A Skalski P D Atkin D Kogler-Hill S E and Perloff R, The view from the ivory tower: evaluating doctoral programs in
communication, Communication Reports, 20 (1) (2007) 24-41. Availabe at doi:DOI: 10.1080/08934210601180747
Meho L I and Spurgin K M, Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: an evaluation
of data sources and research methods, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (12)
(2005) 1314–1331.

20. Varalakshmi V, Library and information science education in South India: perspective and challenges, DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information
Technology, 30 (5) (2010) 32-47.
Singh S, Library and information science education in India: issues and trends, Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 8 (2) (2003) 1-17.
Singh S P and Babbar P, Doctoral research in library and information science in India: trends and issues, DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information
Technology, 34 (2) (2014) 170-180.
Chandrashekara M and Ramsesh, Library and information research in India. Paper Presented at the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information
Education & Practice, Japan (2009). Available at http://www.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/a-liep2009/proceedings/Papers/a65.pdf
Satija M, Whom do we surve: docotoral research in library and information science ressearch in India, DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 18
(1) (1998) 19-24.
Satija M, What ails doctoral research in library and information science in India? DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 30 (5) (2010) 61-
66.
Neuendor K A Skalski P D Atkin D Kogler-Hill S E and Perloff R, The view from the ivory tower: evaluating doctoral programs in communication,
Communication Reports, 20 (1) (2007) 24-41. Availabe at doi:DOI: 10.1080/08934210601180747
Meho L I and Spurgin K M, Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: an evaluation of data sources and
research methods, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (12) (2005) 1314–1331.
Adkins D and Budd J, Scholarly productivity of U. S. LIS faculty, Library & Information Science Research, 28 (3) (2006) 374-389.
Shaw D and Vaughan L, Publication and citation patterns among LIS faculty: profiling a “typical professor”, Library & Information Science Research,
30(1) (2008) 47-55. Available at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.07.002

21. Allen M Maier M and Grimes D, Evaluating doctoral programs in communication on the basis of citations, The Electronic Journal of Communication,
22 (1 & 2) 2012. Avialable at http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/022/1/022122.html.
Kumbar M and Vasantha Raju N, Research productivity in library and information science in India during 1957-2006, SRELS Journal of Information
Management, 45(1) (2008) 71-81.
Chandrakar R and Arora J, Indian national research productivity in library and information science, INFLIBNET Newsletter, 17 (4) (2011) 15-20.
Harinarayana N and Vasantha Raju N, Citation analysis of publications of LIS teachers in South India. Information Studies, 18 (3) (2012) 143-161.
White P B, Using data mining for citation analysis, College & Research Libraries, 80 (1) (2019). Available at
https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/16892/18538

22. Thank You
?
Image Courtesy: OCLC