Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Exploring Research performance of Library and Information Science Faculties in Google Scholar: A Scientometric Assessment

Sanjay Kumar Maurya, Akhandanand Shukla, R K Ngurtinkhuma


The purpose of this paper is to explore the research performance of LIS faculties based on Google Scholar. The study is exploratory in nature by identifying the performance level using different scientometric indices. The study shows variations in publications and citations with growth in publications and fluctuations in citations. Further, document types in GS are quite unclear and considered as its' limitations. Top productive authors, top cited authors, and top cited journal articles have been found. Moreover, preferred research areas have been proposed based on co-occurrence of keywords, and inter- and intra-departmental collaboration is weak among LIS faculties. The study provides sufficient insight for the individual researcher, LIS departments, institutes / universities to improve upon their research performance and collaboration with others by framing new research guidelines. 

Full Text:



Adkins, D., & Budd, J. (2006). Scholarly productivity of US LIS faculty. Library & Information Science Research, 28(3), 374–389.

Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343–351.

Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170.

Ali, M. Y., & Richardson, J. (2017). Pakistani LIS scholars’ altmetrics in ResearchGate Program, 51(2), 152–169.

Bauer, J., Leydesdorff, L., & 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, 67(12), 3095–3100.

Blessinger, K., & Hrycaj, P. (2010). Highly cited articles in library and information science: An analysis of content and authorship trends. Library & Information Science Research, 32(2), 156–162.

Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Hug, S. E. (2018). Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: A new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics, 114(2), 427–437.

Chen, X., Chen, J., Wu, D., Xie, Y., & Li, J. (2016). Mapping the research trends by co-word analysis based on keywords from funded project. Procedia Computer Science, 91, 547–555.

Co-citation and Co-occurrence: An Overview. (2014, August 19). Retrieved October 30, 2018, from

Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2012). Google Scholar metrics: An unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El Profesional de La Informacion, 21(4), 419–427.

Delgado López-Cózar, E., Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., & Ayllón, J. M. (2017). Google Scholar: the ‘big data’ bibliographic tool. In: Cantu-Ortiz, fj. (ed.). Research analytics: boosting university productivity and competitiveness through scientometrics (pp. 59-80). CRC Press (Taylor & Francis).

Dev, C. S., Parsa, H. G., Parsa, R. A., & Bujisic, M. (2015). Assessing faculty productivity by research impact: Introducing Dp2 Index. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 15(2), 93–124.

Diem, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2013). The use of bibliometrics to measure research performance in Education sciences. Research in Higher Education, 54(1), 86–114.

Dixon, L., Duncan, C., Fagan, J. C., Mandernach, M., and Warlick, S. E. (2010). Finding articles and journals via Google Scholar, journal portals, and link resolvers: Usability study results. American Library Association, 50(2), 170–181.

Gasparyan, A. Y., Nurmashev, B., Yessirkepov, M., Endovitskiy, D. A., Voronov, A. A., & Kitas, G. D. (2017). Researcher and author profiles: Opportunities, advantages, and limitations. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(11), 1749–1756.

Harzing, A., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 61–73.

Jan, S. U., & Anwar, M. A. (2013). Impact of Pakistani authors in the Google world: A study of Library and Information Science faculty. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–18.

Martínez, R. A., & Anderson, T. (2015). Are the most highly cited articles the ones that are the most downloaded? A bibliometric study of IRRODL. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). Retrieved from

Martin-Martin, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Harzing, A.-W., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017). Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 152–163.

Mayr, P., & Walter, A. K. (2007). An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 31(6), 814-830. DOI:

Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.

Mingers, J., & Meyer, M. (2017). Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1111–1121.

Muñoz-Muñoz, A. M., & Mirón-Valdivieso, M. D. (2017). Analysis of collaboration and co- citation networks between researchers studying “violence involving women.” Information Research, 22(2). Available at

Radhakrishnan, S., Erbis, S., Isaacs, J. A., & Kamarthi, S. (2017). Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0172778.

Repanovici, A. (2011). Measuring the visibility of the university’s scientific production through scientometric methods: An exploratory study at the Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 12(2), 106–117.

Sedighi, M. (2016). Application of word co-occurrence analysis method in mapping of the scientific fields (case study: the field of Informetrics). Library Review, 65, 52–64.

Sharma, N., Bairwa, M., Gowthamghosh, B., Gupta, S. D., & Mangal, D. K. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of the published road traffic injuries research in India, post-1990.Health Research Policy and Systems, 16.

Shultz, M. (2007). Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 95(4), 442-445.

Singh, V. K., Uddin, A., & Pinto, D. (2015). Computer science research: The top 100 institutions in India and in the world. Scientometrics, 104(2), 529–553.

Stern, R. S., & Arndt, K. A. (1999). Top cited authors in dermatology: a citation study from 24 journals: 1982-1996. Archives of Dermatology, 135(3), 299–302.

Stirbu, S., Paul, T., Schmitz, S., Haesbroeck, G., & Greco, N. (2015). The utility of Google Scholar when searching geographical literature: Comparison with three commercial bibliographic databases. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 322-329. Retrieved from

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). VOSviewer manual. Manual for VOSviewer Version, 1.4.0.

Vucetic, S., Chanda, A. K., Zhang, S., Bai, T., & Maiti, A. (2017). Faculty citation measures are highly correlated with peer assessment of computer science doctoral programs. Retrieved from

Xing, D., Zhao, Y., Dong, S., & Lin, J. (2018). Global research trends in stem cells for osteoarthritis: A bibliometric and visualized study. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, 21(7), 1372–1384.

Zientek, L. R., Werner, J. M., Campuzano, M. V., & Nimon, K. (2018). The use of Google Scholar for research and research dissemination. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 30(1), 39–46.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Disclaimer 2016-2019 © Indian Library Association (ILA), All Rights Reserved.

Designed and Developed by Dr. Mohammad Nazim under the direction of Prof. Shabahat Husain.