Publication by Australian LIS academics and practitioners: A preliminary investigation

1. Publication by Australian LIS academics and practitioners: A preliminary investigation Patricia Willard, Mary Anne Kennan, Concepción S. WilsonInformation Systems, Technology and Management, Australian School of Business, The University of New South Wales, Sydney AUSTRALIA 2052 Howard D. WhiteCollege of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. The authors wish to acknowledge with gratitude the valuable assistance of Sebastian Böll and the support of the John Metcalfe Memorial Fund.

2. Introduction • For a discipline – publication is an important contributor to the communication of ideas, research results, and experiences • For academics – publication is a major determinant of a successful case for continuing employment, promotion and research funding • This study investigates publication patterns in Australian LIS over the period 1975-2006 • Focus is not on productivity or impact • Later work will present a fuller picture

3. Literature • Formal publication • Substantial differences in publication patterns between disciplines • Despite differences; growing publication numbers in all disciplines • Direct relationship between the growth in publication numbers and university funding regimes • In general, growth in co-authorship • Increasing multi-disciplinarity (Jurisdiction/turf)

4. Method • The three Thomson Scientific citation databases using the Dialog information retrieval system • Criteria • Original research • Journal subject category (IS&LS) • Dialog’s duplicate detector used to eliminate duplication • More than 1,000 records were found for the period 1975-2006 • 945 documents by at least one author with an Australian address • SPSS was used for the analysis.  DeltaGraph was used for the graphics.

5. Limitations • Only limited suite of citation databases used: • Social SciSearch • SciSearch • Arts & Humanities Search • Limiting to the subject category IS&LS • some LIS authors publish in other areas • conversely there are some publications the IS&LS category in which it is unlikely LIS authors would publish. • No Australian journals are included in Thomson Scientific IS&LS subject category

6. Number of papers for authors with an Australian address

7. 2 . 4 2 . 2 2 . 0 1 . 8 Mean No. of authors in each period 1 6 . 1 . 4 1 . 2 1 . 0 1975-1982 1983-1990 1991-1998 1999-2006 Four 8-year time periods Change over time in mean number of authors per paper

8. Changing patterns of Australian and international authorship Percentage of types of authorship over time Four 8-year time periods

9. Backgrounds of authors publishing in journals in the Thomson Scientific IS&LS subject category Percentage of authors by background in each period Four 8-year time periods

10. However… • Not such a negative picture considering • Australia’s contribution to the Thomson ISI databases in comparison with other comparable jurisdictions • Falling numbers of Australian LIS Schools and therefore academic staff • Anecdotal reports of shrinking numbers of professional staff in many libraries

11. Number of publications in rank order by countries (n=50) Australia ranks 7th

12. Conclusions/Discussion points • Four propositions supported • Increase in the number of papers • Proportion of papers with more than one author increased • The number of collaborations will have increased • Authors from other academic fields increasing in the IS&LS category • Confluence of the “information” or “i” fields • Begins an analysis of LIS publication in Australia – focus of this part on characteristics of authorship • Next step to look at Australian LIS journals

13. Thank you. Any questions or comments?