CITATION BASED COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LIBRARY HI-TECH AND LIBRARY QUARTERLY JOURNALS USING SCIMAGO JOURNAL RANK

Journal rankings are widely used in academic circles in evaluating the impact and quality of academic journals. The purpose of a journal ranking is to reflect the location of a journal within its field, the relative difficulty of being published in that journal, and the reputation associated with it. SCImago Journal Rank - A measure of the scientific impact of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or reputation of the journals from which such citations come. This paper examined citation-based analysis using the SCImago journal rank to compare Library Quarterly and Library Hi-Tech journals are published from 1999 onwards particularly in the fields of library and information science. This study found that in 2018 SJR ranking, H indexes and best quartile etc. For Library Hi-Tech Journal SJR 0.75, h index is 33, Q1 is the best quartile and in 2018 about Library Quarterly Journal SJR 0.73, h index 34, and Q1 best quartile. And also found number of citable documents and non citable documents, number of self citations and total citation of the both journals from 1999 to 2018

Estudos bibliométricos sobre a produção científica da temática Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação em bibliotecas

To measure the scientific activity, it has used the bibliographic indicators that are based on statistical analysis of quantitative data found in scientific and technical production. The aim of this study was to delineate an overview of the scientific production of the theme Information and Communication Technologies in libraries, in order to identify: the most productive authors (Lotka's Law); the historical development of number of publications and journals that published on the subject (Bradford Law); and the main approaches that cover the topic (Zipf's Law). The methodology followed four steps: choice of Web of Science as the basis for query data; setting the parameters of search strategies and the coverage period; clearance of the results; and processing of survey data. The results showed that the first works indexed in the Web of Science dating back to 1988 and that by 2014, 458 articles were produced. The scientific production remained stable in recent years. The most productive authors were Gomez, Fourie and Aharony. There was no a high concentration in a particular group, but rather a widespread authors. It was identified that there are five journals with higher productivity, account for one third of the total scientific output: Electronic Library, Program Electronic Library and Information Systems, Library Hi Tech, Library Trends and Libri. The main keywords indexed by Web of Science were: Academic Library, Internet, Digital Library, Information Retrieval, Librarians and Mobile Services. They are very present approaches in product development, services, software and applications in today's society.Para medir a atividade científica, tem-se utilizado os indicadores bibliográficos que se baseiam em análise estatística de dados quantitativos encontrados na produção técnica e científica. O objetivo deste estudo foi delinear um panorama da produção científica da temática Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação em bibliotecas, de modo a identificar: os autores mais produtivos (Lei de Lotka); a evolução histórica do número de publicações e os periódicos que mais publicaram sobre a temática (Lei de Bradford); e as principais abordagens que cobrem o tema (Lei de Zipf). A metodologia seguiu quatro etapas: escolha da Web of Science como base de dados de consulta; configuração dos parâmetros das estratégias de busca e do período de cobertura; depuração dos resultados; e tratamento dos dados de pesquisa. Os resultados mostraram que os primeiros trabalhos indexados na Web of Science datam de 1988 e que, até 2014, foram produzidos 458 artigos. A produção científica se mostrou estável nos últimos anos. Os autores mais produtivos foram Gomez, Fourie e Aharony. Não se observou uma alta concentração em um grupo específico, mas sim uma ampla difusão de autores. Identificou-se que são cinco os periódicos com maior produtividade, responsáveis por um terço do total da produção científica: Electronic Library, Program Electronic Library and Information Systems, Library Hi Tech, Library Trends e Libri. As principais palavras-chave indexadas pela Web of Science foram: Academic Library, Internet, Digital Library, Information Retrieval, Librarians e Mobile Services. São abordagens muito presentes no desenvolvimento de produtos, serviços, softwares e aplicativos na sociedade atual

Preparing for the age of the digital palimpsest

Citation: Jason Bengtson, (2012) "Preparing for the age of the digital palimpsest", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 30 Iss: 3, pp.513 - 522Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to define and stimulate interest in a potential new specialty within the information science field. Design/methodology/approach: Sources on digital forensics and digital archeology are discussed, and the topic is examined critically from a librarian perspective. The author examines the possibility of an information science specialty pursuing the reconstruction of “digital palimpsests”, where data that later becomes historically significant has been deleted or partially overwritten on digital media. Findings: The author identifies at least one key incident (the NASA moon landing tapes) where this potential field has already started to be defined. Examination of the literature indicates that emphasis in data recovery to this point has centered on the needs of law enforcement and disaster recovery rather than on the considerations of manuscript preservation, recovery, and curation. The author emphasizes the need for librarians to bring together the skills of multiple fields, especially that of information technology, in order to shape the tools needed to take the lead in “digital palimpsest” recovery. Originality/value: The author asserts that the recovery of “digital palimpsests” will become important as digital archives age and society's position on what has historical value inevitably shifts. The author further asserts that members of the information science field must actively work to take ownership of the field before it is subsumed by information technology or another discipline less equipped to manage its nebulous considerations effectively

U.S. academic libraries: understanding their web presence and their relationship with economic indicators

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1001-0The main goal of this research is to analyze the web structure and performance of units and services belonging to U.S. academic libraries in order to check their suitability for webometric studies. Our objectives include studying their possible correlation with economic data and assessing their use for complementary evaluation purposes. We conducted a survey of library homepages, institutional repositories, digital collections, and online catalogs (a total of 374 URLs) belonging to the 100 U.S. universities with the highest total expenditures in academic libraries according to data provided by the National Center for Education Statistics. Several data points were taken and analyzed, including web variables (page count, external links, and visits) and economic variables (total expenditures, expenditures on printed and electronic books, and physical visits). The results indicate that the variety of URL syntaxes is wide, diverse and complex, which produces a misrepresentation of academic libraries’ web resources and reduces the accuracy of web analysis. On the other hand, institutional and web data indicators are not highly correlated. Better results are obtained by correlating total library expenditures with URL mentions measured by Google (r = 0.546) and visits measured by Compete (r = 0.573), respectively. Because correlation values obtained are not highly significant, we estimate such correlations will increase if users can avoid linkage problems (due to the complexity of URLs) and gain direct access to log files (for more accurate data about visits).Orduña Malea, E.; Regazzi, JJ. (2014). U.S. academic libraries: understanding their web presence and their relationship with economic indicators. Scientometrics. 98(1):315-336. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1001-0S315336981Adecannby, J. (2011). Web link analysis of interrelationship between top ten African universities and world universities. Annals of library and information studies, 58(2), 128–138.Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Measuring the institutions’ footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech, 27(4), 540–556.Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric Ranking of World Universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher education in Europe, 33(2/3), 234–244.Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernandez, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open Access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477–486.Arakaki, M., & Willet, P. (2009). Webometric analysis of departments of librarianship and information science: A follow-up study. Journal of information science, 35(2), 143–152.Arlitsch, K., & O’Brian, P. S. (2012). Invisible institutional repositories: Addresing the low indexing ratios of IR in Google Scholar. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 60–81.Bar-Ilan, J. (1999). Search engine results over time—A case study on search engine stability”. Cybermetrics, 2/3. Retrieved February 18, 2013 from http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v2i1p1.html.Bar-Ilan, J. (2001). Data collection methods on the Web for informetric purposes: A review and analysis. Scientometrics, 50(1), 7–32.Bermejo, F. (2007). The internet audience: Constitution & measurement. New York: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.Buigues-Garcia, M., & Gimenez-Chornet, V. (2012). Impact of Web 2.0 on national libraries. International Journal of Information Management, 32(1), 3–10.Chu, H., He, S., & Thelwall, M. (2002). Library and information science schools in Canada and USA: A Webometric perspective. Journal of education for Library and Information Science, 43(2), 110–125.Chua, Alton, Y. K., & Goh, D. H. (2010). A study of Web 2.0 applications in library websites. Library and Information Science Research, 32(3), 203–211.Gallego, I., García, I.-M., & Rodríguez, L. (2009). Universities’ websites: Disclosure practices and the revelation of financial information. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 9(15), 153–192.Gomes, B. & Smith, B. T. (2003). Detecting query-specific duplicate documents. [Patent]. Retrieved February 18, 2013 from http://www.patents.com/Detecting-query-specific-duplicate-documents/US6615209/en-US .Harinarayana, N. S., & Raju, N. V. (2010). Web 2.0 features in university library web sites. Electronic Library, 28(1), 69–88.Lewandowski, D., Wahlig, H., & Meyer-Bautor, G. (2006). The freshness of web search engine databases. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 131–148.Mahmood, K., & Richardson, J. V, Jr. (2012). Adoption of Web 2.0 in US academic libraries: A survey of ARL library websites. Program, 45(4), 365–375.Orduña-Malea, E., & Ontalba-Ruipérez, J-A. (2012). Selective linking from social platforms to university websites: A case study of the Spanish academic system. Scientometrics. (in press).Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Mapping World-class universities on the Web. Information Processing and Management, 45(2), 272–279.Ortega, José L. & Aguillo, Isidro F. (2009b). North America Academic Web Space: Multicultural Canada vs. The United States Homogeneity. In: ASIST & ISSI pre-conference symposium on informetrics and scientometrics.Phan, T., Hardesty, L., Sheckells, C., & George, A. (2009). Documentation for the academic libraries survey (ALS) public-use data file: Fiscal year 2008. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education.Qiu, J., Cheng, J., & Wang, Z. (2004). An analysis of backlinks counts and web impact factors for Chinese university websites. Scientometrics, 60(3), 463–473.Regazzi, J. J. (2012a). Constrained?—An analysis of U.S. Academic Libraries and shifts in spending, staffing and utilization, 1998–2008. College and Research Libraries, 73(5), 449–468.Regazzi, J. J. (2012b). Comparing Academic Library Spending with Public Libraries, Public K-12 Schools, Higher Education Public Institutions, and Public Hospitals Between 1998–2008. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 205–216.Rousseau, R. (1999). Daily time series of common single word searches in AltaVista and NorthernLight. Cybermetrics, 2/3. Retrieved February 18, 2013 from http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v2i1p2.html .Sato, S., & Itsumura, H. (2011). How do people use open access papers in non-academic activities? A link analysis of papers deposited in institutional repositories. Library, Information and Media Studies, 9(1), 51–64.Scholze, F. (2007). Measuring research impact in an open access environment. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 17(1–4), 220–232.Smith, A. G. (2011). Wikipedia and institutional repositories: An academic symbiosis? In: Proceedings of the ISSI 2011 conference. Durban, South Africa, 4–7 July 2011. Retrieved February 18, 2013 from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/publns/SmithAG2011_ISSI_paper.pdf .Smith, A.G. (2012). Webometric evaluation of institutional repositories. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on webometrics informetrics and scientometrics & 13th collnet meeting. Seoul (Korea), 722–729.Smith, A., & Thelwall, M. (2002). Web impact factors for Australasian Universities. Scientometrics, 54(3), 363–380.Tang, R., & Thelwall, M. (2008). A hyperlink analysis of US public and academic libraries’ web sites. Library Quarterly, 78(4), 419–435.Thelwall, M. (2008). Extracting accurate and complete results from search engines: Case study Windows Live. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 38–50.Thelwall, M. (2009). Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the social sciences. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool.Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2011). A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organisations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1488–1497.Thelwall, M., Sud, P., & Wilkinson, D. (2012). Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 1960–1972.Thelwall, M., & Zuccala, A. (2008). A University-centred European Union link analysis. Scientometrics, 75(3), 407–442.Uyar, A. (2009a). Google stemming mechanisms. Journal of Information Science, 35(5), 499–514.Uyar, A. (2009b). Investigation of the accuracy of search engine hit counts. Journal of Information Science, 35(4), 469–480.Zuccala, A., Thelwall, M., Oppenheim, C., & Dhiensa, R. (2007). Web intelligence analyses of digital libraries: A case study of the National Electronic Library for Health (NeLH). Journal of Documentation, 63(4), 558–589

Marketing an Established Institutional Repository: Marquette Libraries’ Research Stewardship Survey

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the results of Marquette University Libraries’ survey measuring faculty knowledge and attitudes about the institution’s repository, for the purposes of creating a marketing plan for the institutional repository (IR). Design/methodology/approach The paper adopts a quantitative approach through the use of a survey. Findings Like many other endeavors to measure faculty engagement with the IR, the investigators discovered that faculty knowledge of the IR is not universal. Moreover, the perceived values and motivators for faculty use of the IR were also not surprising, with faculty viewing online dissemination of their work to be the most valuable feature offered by the IR, and furthering their own careers was the prime motivator. The importance of continual and varied methods of marketing is reaffirmed. Originality/value Whereas many articles on faculty recruitment for IRs agree on the importance of marketing, very few suggest specific strategies. The investigators make suggestions for continual and varied marketing methods based on their findings

Bibliography: The Information Commons and Beyond

A bibliography of resources about the Information Commons model in libraries

Improving Screencast Accessibility for People with Disabilities: Guidelines and Techniques

Screencast video tutorials are increasingly popular in libraries, but may present access problems for people with disabilities unless specific accessibility features are added during screencast creation. This article reviews existing standards for accessible web-based multimedia and gives guidelines on how to create accessible screencasts based on these standards

Basics - test upload

testing word doc conversion to pd

Accessibility of Vendor-Created Video Tutorials for People with Disabilities

Many video, screencast, webinar, or interactive tutorials are created and provided by vendors for use by libraries to instruct users in database searching. This study investigates whether these vendor-created database tutorials are accessible for people with disabilities to see whether librarians can use these tutorials instead of creating them in-house. Findings on accessibility were mixed. Positive accessibility features and common accessibility problems are described, with recommendations on how to maximize accessibility