Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Library and Information Science Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lisres

Exploring the interdisciplinary characteristics of library and information T

science (LIS) from the perspective of interdisciplinary LIS authors
Yu-Wei Chang
Department of Library and Information Science and Center for Research in Econometric Theory and Applications, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd.,
Taipei 10617, Taiwan

A B S T R A C T

This bibliometric analysis explores the interdisciplinary characteristics of library and information science (LIS)
from the perspective of interdisciplinary LIS authors. Articles published in non-LIS journals by LIS authors be-
tween 2005 and 2014 and indexed by the Web of Science database formed the basis for analysis. The results
showed that interdisciplinary LIS authors published articles in numerous disciplines; a largest number of articles
were found in medical and music journals. Over half of the articles published by these authors were not LIS-
related and were primarily singly-authored articles and articles coauthored by LIS and non-LIS authors. Most
articles coauthored by only LIS authors involved LIS-related topics. Interdisciplinary LIS authors preferred to
publish by themselves. The majority of interdisciplinary authors were academic librarians. Interdisciplinary LIS
authors most frequently collaborated with other LIS authors, followed by authors from the field of medicine.
Although interdisciplinary LIS authors are a minority, they are active in expanding the visibility of LIS.

1. Introduction principal type of interdisciplinary research activity (Pierce, 1999).

Interdisciplinarity is a characteristic of numerous disciplines, in-
cluding library and information science (LIS). Interdisciplinarity man-
ifests itself in interdisciplinary teaching and research activities (Luo,
2013). Interdisciplinary research is conducted by researchers from
various disciplines and focuses on connecting or integrating an array of
perspectives and skills (Aboelela et al., 2007). The benefits of inter-
disciplinary research are that it fosters growth in interdisciplinary
projects, centers, and programs, which subsequently increases the
amount of interdisciplinary research conducted and improves in-
dicators measuring the degree of interdisciplinarity (Kodama, Watatani,
& Sengoku, 2013; Omodei, De Domenico, & Arenas, 2017). The in-
creasing trend in the degree of interdisciplinarity in LIS suggests that
the impact of other disciplines on the LIS knowledge foundation has
been growing (Chang & Huang, 2012; Larivière, Sugimoto, & Cronin,
2012). This leads to a gradual change in landscape of LIS research be-
cause research topics, research methods, and research views of LIS are
affected by other disciplines.
2. Problem statement
In addition to citing literature outside one's own discipline and co-
authoring in LIS journals with researchers from other disciplines,
publishing research in journals outside one's own discipline is a
Other interdisciplinary research activities undertaken by researchers
include advising graduate students outside their discipline, attending
conferences in other disciplines, and engaging in interdisciplinary re-
search discussions (Baskerville, Carrera, Gomes, Lai, & Parker, 2017;
Luo, 2013; Sugimoto, Ni, Russell, & Bychowski, 2011). Each type of
interdisciplinary research activity reflects the different interdisciplinary
characteristics of a given discipline. This means that the inter-
disciplinary characteristics of a given discipline can be revealed in more
detail by exploring the degree of interdisciplinary research activities.
However, most studies on the interdisciplinary characteristics of LIS
have focused on which other disciplines cite LIS publications (Hessey &
Willett, 2013; Odell & Gabbard, 2008; Stone, 2014), which disciplines
are cited by LIS publications (Åströml, 2010; Chang & Huang, 2012;
Larivière et al., 2012; Saito, 1980), and to what degree authors from
other disciplines publish in LIS journals (Aharony, 2012; Huang &
Chang, 2011; Qiu, 1992; Walters & Wilder, 2016). Also, the focus of
such research is typically limited to LIS journals themselves, rather than
all LIS research, whereas LIS studies are not always available only from
LIS publications (Higgins, DeVito, Stieglitz, Tolliver, & Tran, 2017;
Macauley, Evans, & Pearson, 2010). The publication of articles in non-
LIS journals by LIS authors has been neglected by interdisciplinary re-
search, which mostly explores the spillover of other disciplines into LIS.
Authors affiliated with LIS institutions and who publish in non-LIS
journals are termed interdisciplinary LIS authors in the present study.

E-mail address: yuweichang2013@ntu.edu.tw.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.06.004
Received 17 July 2017; Received in revised form 13 March 2018; Accepted 6 June 2018
0740-8188/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Y.-W. Chang
Interdisciplinary LIS authors have a strong association with the evolu-
tion of LIS research because they work for LIS institutions, such as li-
braries, higher education programs in LIS, information industry com-
panies, LIS agencies, and so on. Although interdisciplinary authors who
publish research results in journals outside their own discipline are few
in number in any given discipline, they can be considered active au-
thors who expand the visibility of their own disciplines by breaking
boundaries. Since interdisciplinary LIS authors affect LIS knowledge,
their work can be used as a proxy for learning more about the inter-
disciplinary characteristics of LIS and contributing to the growing lit-
erature on LIS interdisciplinarity.
Nissani (1997) provides an overview of the benefits of inter-
disciplinary research. While not denying that any discipline will of
course have specialized areas of research, Nissani points to inter-
disciplinarity as fostering, among other things, creativity, new per-
spectives, and research flexibility. Writing specifically about LIS,
Beghtol (1995) addresses interdisciplinarity within LIS, among LIS and
related information fields, and between LIS and other disciplines. Both
authors also highlight detriments and difficulties, and both articles are
still relevant over 30 years later. To move forward in interdisciplinary
research, it is important to gain a more well-rounded view of the cur-
rent state of interdisciplinarity in LIS.
Targeted for LIS researchers who want to increase their research
flexibility and broaden their research horizons, this study helps them
identify non-LIS disciplines in which they might wish to publish, and
might help to discover research topics. Three research questions fo-
cusing on LIS authors publishing in non-LIS journals were addressed.
RQ1. In which journals of non-LIS disciplines do interdisciplinary LIS
authors publish?
RQ2. What are the research topics of articles published by
interdisciplinary LIS authors?
RQ3. With authors from which disciplines do interdisciplinary LIS
authors collaborate?
3. Literature review
The interdisciplinary characteristics of LIS have been frequently
explored from the perspective of citation networks. The disciplinary
origins of references listed in LIS publications reveal the disciplines
contributing to LIS knowledge (Åströml, 2010; Chang & Huang, 2012;
Larivière et al., 2012; Saito, 1980), and the disciplinary attributes of
citations received by LIS publications reveal the disciplines influenced
by LIS (Hessey & Willett, 2013; Odell & Gabbard, 2008; Stone, 2014).
Analyzing the disciplinary attributes of authors of LIS publications
provides another means of identifying the interdisciplinary character-
istics of LIS (Aharony, 2012; Huang & Chang, 2011; Qiu, 1992; Walters
& Wilder, 2016). Many researchers have used a combination of methods
to explore interdisciplinary research activities. For instance, Chang and
Huang (2012) used direct citation, bibliographical coupling, and co-
authorship analyses to explore the interdisciplinary characteristics of
LIS. Larivière et al. (2012) analyzed the disciplinary attributes of re-
ferences and authors contributing to LIS articles. Few studies have fo-
cused on LIS publishing outside the LIS discipline.
Each journal has its own subject scope, and journal editors are most
concerned about research topics that will interest readers (Mustaine &
Tewksbury, 2013). Authors therefore are concerned with how well the
research topics of their manuscripts match journal scope (Coonin, 2011;
Özçakar, Franchignoni, Kara, & Muñoz Lasa, 2012). It seems reasonable
that authors who are interested in interdisciplinary topics or who have
diverse disciplinary backgrounds would want to publish research in
journals outside of their own disciplines. However, most researchers
publish in their own disciplines because topic coverage is an important
factor when researchers choose journals (Borrego & Anglada, 2016),
and also because academic reward systems (e.g., tenure and promotion)
126
Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134
probably favor journals known to those making judgments. Factors such
as these may explain why publishing articles in journals outside one's
own discipline has been a neglected interdisciplinary activity.
Clearly authors do not always publish in their own disciplines
(Haddow, 2015; Hurd, 1992). Several studies have reported on non-LIS
authors publishing in LIS journals (Chang & Huang, 2012; Paul-Hus,
Mongeon, & Shu, 2016; Qiu, 1992). Larivière et al. (2012) reported that
approximately 60% of authors who published in LIS journals in 2010
also published in non-LIS journals. Prebor (2010) found that most
master's theses and doctoral dissertations exploring LIS topics were
written by non-LIS graduate students. LIS authors also have been ob-
served to publish in non-LIS journals. Thomas and Leonard (2014)
surveyed 136 academic librarians engaged in publishing and presenting
outside of LIS, unlike most studies that analyzed librarians' research
outputs based solely on LIS journal articles (Chang, 2015). They ob-
served that most academic librarians were interested in pursuing work
in humanities in fields such as history, music, art, and literature, which
matched their non-LIS advanced degrees. In addition, many academic
librarians produced non-LIS work in more than one discipline. Higgins
et al. (2017) identified collaborations between librarians and non-LIS
faculty in a study of 157 articles published in 13 education and li-
brarianship journals covering multiple scientific disciplines. Articles
concerning LIS topics were published in health science as well as other
science and technology journals, on topics such as information literacy,
library services, information seeking, bibliometrics, non-library in-
formation resources, and library resources. Health science librarians
contributed the largest number of articles.
Research productivity is the main motivation for librarians to en-
gage in research teams (Janke & Rush, 2014). In the United States, more
than half of all academic librarians were granted faculty status
(Walters, 2016), indicating that academic librarians have to publish in
the same way as faculty members. Hence, librarians' diverse non-LIS
educational backgrounds go some way in explaining the presence of
non-LIS publications authored by academic librarians. Lindquist and
Gilman (2010) reported that although more than half of academic li-
brarians holding doctoral degrees published in LIS (51%), up to 42.7%
published in fields matching their subject doctorates. Huse and Knight
(2016) surveyed 75 special collections librarians and reported that most
of them supported and engaged in publishing outside LIS. Moreover,
new emerging roles increase librarians' collaboration with departments
outside the library, including teaching researchers to find information
they need, writing project result manuscripts, and coauthoring articles
by research teams (Bedi & Walde, 2017; Crum & Cooper, 2013; Glenn &
Rolland, 2010).
Academic librarians and faculty members are the two primary types
of LIS authors (Chang, 2016, 2017; Walters & Wilder, 2015; Wiberley
Jr, Hurd, & Weller, 2006). Interdisciplinarity also arises from the fact
that some LIS faculty members hold non-LIS doctorates; a multi-
disciplinary trend in LIS faculty has been observed (Lindquist & Gilman,
2008; Lopatovska & Ransom, 2016; Weech & Pluzhenskaia, 2005;
Wiggins & Sawyer, 2012). Pluzhenskaia (2007) found that LIS faculty
members holding non-LIS doctorates published more in non-LIS jour-
nals than did those holding LIS doctorates. Obviously, LIS researchers,
including librarians and faculty members, show interdisciplinarity
owing to their diverse disciplinary backgrounds. In addition, the re-
search-practice gap has been a continuing issue across disciplines
(Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001). Differences in preference for research
topics between practitioners and academic authors in LIS have been
identified. Some studies suggest that librarian may be expected to apply
their research results to improve their practice, and therefore publish
on LIS topics in LIS journals (Finlay, Ni, Tsou, & Sugimoto, 2013;
Nguyen & Hider, 2018; Sugimoto et al., 2014).
4. Methodology
The focus of this study was articles published by LIS authors in non-
Y.-W. Chang
LIS journals across various disciplines.
4.1. Data collection
To identify articles published in non-LIS journals by at least one LIS
author, LIS journals and LIS authors must be defined first. Journals
listed in the subject category of “information science and library sci-
ence” in the 2014 edition of Journal Citation Reports1 (JCR) were con-
sidered as candidates for LIS journals. Data were collected in March
2016. At that time, the 2014 edition of JCR was the latest edition. JCR
categorizes each journal into one or more subject categories; therefore,
a weak association may exist between a specific subject category and a
specific journal. In addition to library science journals, journals related
to information science, management, and other subjects were included
in the subject category of “information science and library science”
(Abrizah, Noorhidawati, & Zainab, 2015; Ni, Sugimoto, & Cronin, 2013;
Walters & Wilder, 2015). To ensure that the analyzed journals were
strongly related to LIS, they had to be indexed by the Library and In-
formation Science Abstracts database (LISA) and be classified as LIS
journals by the Ulrichsweb database. Non-LIS journals were defined as
those other than LIS journals.
Among the 85 journal titles listed in the subject category of “in-
formation science and library science,” two journals were listed under
both previous and current names due to name changes in 2014. When
the journals were renamed, they were represented by their current
name. Therefore, a total of 83 LIS journals were indexed by the 2014
edition of JCR. Next, 41 journals were excluded, including 9 non-
English journals, 1 nonacademic journal (Library Journal was classified
as a magazine by Ulrichsweb), and 31 non-LIS journals that were not
indexed in the LISA and Ulrichsweb databases. This left 42 journals
identified as LIS for this study. It should be noted that JCR annually
updates the journal list in each subject category, thus changes in the LIS
journal list may exist. Therefore, other LIS-oriented journals that were
indexed by the 2004–2012 editions of JCR but not included in the 42
LIS oriented journals identified from the 2013 edition of JCR were also
considered and examined. Some new journals were added.
Author affiliations were reviewed because these were the most ap-
propriate data points for identifying the LIS and non-LIS authors con-
tributing to the thousands of non-LIS articles retrieved from the Web of
Science (WOS) database. Authors who were affiliated with LIS-related
institutions were defined as LIS authors. LIS-related institutions could
include various types of libraries, LIS academic departments and in-
stitutes in universities, and professional associations (Chang, 2015).
The criterion for identifying LIS authors was based on the assumption
that authors affiliated with LIS-related institutions conducted research
related to LIS topics. Although some authors affiliated with LIS in-
stitutions had non-LIS backgrounds and published non-LIS research
results, their diverse disciplinary background information could not be
verified based on bibliographic records and other reference sources.
Therefore, the disciplinary attributes of each author were based on the
affiliation information listed in the articles.
According to experience and reference sources, the keyword “li-
brary” or “information” is usually present in the names of LIS-related
institutions. The” library” keyword has a high association with LIS-re-
lated institutions, whereas the” information” keyword is a general term
and has a low association with LIS-related institutions. Information-
related research topics connect to a wide range of disciplines (Wiggins
& Sawyer, 2012). Further artificial examination was thus necessary for
identifying LIS-related institutions from among those institutions whose
names contain the word “information.” For obtaining from WOS the
bibliographical records of articles by at least one LIS author and pub-
lished in non-LIS journals, the keyword “library” or “information” was
input in the “address” field containing the author affiliation
1 3
https://clarivate.com/products/journal-citation-reports.
127
Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134
information listed in the articles. Additional criteria that were applied
were to identify English articles published between 2005 and 2014 in
non-LIS journals. In addition, articles that were published in LIS jour-
nals indexed before the 2013 edition of JCR were excluded.
A total of 4567 bibliographic records of articles were generated
from the WOS database after the initial search. A laborious manual
examination of institutional websites was then conducted to verify in-
stitutions or units subordinated to institutions (e.g., departments in
universities) whose names contain “information” but not “library.” The
names of LIS departments differ among various countries. Those cases
primarily appeared in departments and institutes in universities. Some
useful directories were used to examine colleges and universities in the
United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, such as the Directory of
ALA-Accredited and Candidate Programs in Library and Information
Studies2 and the Complete University Guide.3 The official websites of
universities in other countries were also used. LIS programs or courses
were used for identifying LIS departments and institutes in universities.
Most universities in non-English-speaking countries offered English
versions of their webpages. The remaining non-English webpages were
translated using online translation tools. Articles lacking complete au-
thor affiliation information were excluded.
4.2. Data processing
The author affiliations were examined to identify the disciplinary
attributes of each author. A temporary classification scheme for coding
the disciplinary attributes of authors was devised by referring to the
subject categories developed by JCR. The classification scheme was
modified during the coding process. The mapping between the in-
stitution and the author names was not revealed in the bibliographic
records of some articles; therefore, full-text articles were examined.
Authors affiliated with two or more institutions across disciplines were
classified into one discipline based on their background information
found on websites or other reference sources. In addition, three types of
institutions to which LIS authors were affiliated were identified: li-
braries, LIS departments and institutes, and other. On the basis of the
disciplinary attributes of each author, the disciplinary combination was
identified from coauthored articles. For example, “LIS and computer
science” was the disciplinary combination yielded from an article co-
authored by an LIS author and a computer science author.
During the process of analyzing the authors' disciplinary attributes,
many authors were found to be affiliated with the National Library of
Medicine (NLM). Because the affiliation information of most NLM au-
thors contains specific department names, the organizational structure
of the NLM was further reviewed. The NLM is a part of the National
Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In
addition to the library operations department, the NLM has several
departments supporting biomedical research and systems. Biomedical
scientists work for the NLM as scientists, not as librarians. Generally,
authors affiliated with libraries were classified as LIS authors, and this
is because authors working for libraries typically have LIS-related
backgrounds. However, most NLM authors were determined to be
biomedical scientists. Only NLM authors serving in the library opera-
tions department were classified as LIS authors.
To explore the possible reasons for LIS authors to publish non-LIS
articles, the educational background or job experience of each author
affiliated with LIS-related institutions was examined through social
media or biographical information listed in journals. After verifying the
professional backgrounds of authors whose affiliation information
contained the keyword “library,” some authors without LIS back-
grounds were excluded. Finally, 479 articles by LIS authors published in
287 journals were identified from 1270 articles published in 398
2
http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/directory.
https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk.
Y.-W. Chang Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134

journals, and this formed the dataset analyzed in this study. The 1270 Table 1
articles by LIS authors that were collected before the manual ex- Comparison of distribution of disciplines between two groups of articles.
amination (group 1) were compared with those 479 articles that re- No. Discipline Group 1 Group 2
mained after the manual examination (group 2); this comparison was
made to determine the difference in results between the two groups. No. of % No. of %
The differences in results between the two datasets can reveal whether articles articles

laborious manual examination is necessary. If a considerable difference 1 Biology 292 23.0 5 1.0
in results was found between the two datasets, then the disciplinary 2 Medicine 224 17.6 65 13.6
attributes of authors should be determined at the level of departments 3 Computer science 123 9.7 29 6.1
or units because the precision of results could be improved. This differs 4 Multidisciplinary science 93 7.3 30 6.3
5 Music 60 4.7 58 12.1
from the analyses of authors' disciplinary attributes determined at the
6 Other arts & humanities 54 4.3 45 9.4
level of the institution used by prior studies (Huang & Chang, 2011). disciplines
The results of the comparison are discussed below. 7 History 51 4.0 43 9.0
The 479 articles verified as those by LIS authors (group 2) were 8 Business & economics 41 3.2 16 3.3
9 Political science 36 2.8 32 6.7
contributed by a total of 869 authors. Among these authors, 623 were
10 Education 29 2.3 14 2.9
LIS authors and were examined through the Internet for their education 11 Art 26 2.0 22 4.6
backgrounds and degrees. Approximately 58.7% (366 authors) of the 12 Chemistry 25 2.0 4 0.8
623 LIS authors either could not be found online or lacked complete 13 Literature 24 1.9 22 4.6
educational background information. Therefore, the analysis related to 14 Plant science 22 1.7 8 1.7
15 Linguistics 20 1.6 13 2.7
educational background of LIS authors by discipline was limited to 257
16 Engineering 18 1.4 5 1.0
LIS authors and focused on non-LIS disciplines. Each LIS author was 17 Environmental science 16 1.3 5 1.0
assigned to a single non-LIS discipline. For LIS authors holding diverse 18 Geoscience 14 1.1 9 1.9
backgrounds, the research topic of their articles analyzed in this study 19 Law 13 1.0 12 2.5
20 Psychology 13 1.0 3 0.6
was used to define their specific field.
21 Philosophy 12 0.9 6 1.3
To identify the disciplines of journals in which LIS authors publish 22 Interdisciplinary social science 12 0.9 6 1.3
their articles, the journal sources were coded by discipline according to 23 Physics 11 0.9 1 0.2
their WOS subject categories designated by JCR. The research topic of 24 Religion 10 0.8 3 0.6
each article was coded after examining its title, abstract, keywords, or 25 Sociology 9 0.7 7 1.5
26 Anthropology 6 0.5 6 1.3
full text. A temporary classification scheme of research topics was de-
27 Mathematics 6 0.5 0 0.0
veloped before starting coding research topics of articles. The categories 28 Zoology 6 0.5 6 1.3
of LIS research topics were determined by referring to related studies 29 Agriculture 4 0.3 4 0.8
(Blessinger & Hrycaj, 2010; Järvelin & Vakkari, 1990; Walia & Kaur, Total 1270 100.0 479 100.0
2012) and were modified during the coding process. The LIS topic
Note: Group 1 refers to articles by authors including non-LIS authors affiliated
scheme proposed by Järvelin and Vakkari (1990) is detailed and has
with the NLM; Group 2 refers to articles excluding those by non-LIS authors
been adopted by numerous studies on LIS topics (Koufogiannakis,
affiliated with the NLM.
Slater, & Crumley, 2004; Rochester, 1995; Yang, Lee, & Choi, 2016).
Five broad categories were generated by Blessinger and Hrycaj (2010)
disciplines with low proportions of articles did not reveal a trend and
based on highly cited LIS articles, indicating that these categories are
are therefore not shown in Fig. 1. An increasing trend was identified in
core LIS topics and justifiably included in the LIS topic scheme estab-
articles published in medicine, other arts and humanities disciplines,
lished by Järvelin and Vakkari (1990). The LIS classification scheme
multidisciplinary science, and business and economics journals. The
devised by Walia and Kaur (2012) details nine broad categories with
largest growth rate was observed in medical journal articles. A de-
numerous specific topics under each. It contains topics emerging after
creasing trend was observed in articles published in music, computer
the 1990s and serves as a supplement to the topic categories devised by
science, education, history, political science, art, and literature jour-
Järvelin and Vakkari.
nals. The largest decreasing rate appeared in music journal articles. No
increasing or decreasing trend was identified in linguistics journal ar-
5. Results
ticles.
Table 2 shows a comparison of two subgroups of articles within the
5.1. Disciplinary distribution
same group of articles: articles by only LIS authors and those by LIS and
non-LIS authors. The results derived for group 1 showed that the two
Table 1 shows the disciplinary distributions of two groups of articles
subgroups of articles were concentrated in three disciplines: biology,
published by at least one LIS author. A total of 1270 articles (group 1)
medicine, and computer science. The two subgroups of articles in group
were published in journals representing 29 disciplines, and 479 articles
2 did not show consistency in terms of the main disciplines. In group 2,
(group 2) were published in journals representing 28 disciplines. Only
articles by only LIS authors were concentrated in music journals
two disciplines differed between the two groups. However, large dif-
(13.7%) and medicaljournals (11.3%). However, approximately half of
ferences were observed in the main disciplines for most articles. Ap-
articles coauthored by LIS and non-LIS authors were published in
proximately half of the articles in group 1 were concentrated in three
medical journals (28.6%), multidisciplinary science journals (12.5%),
disciplines of the natural sciences: biology, medicine, and computer
and computer science journals (8.9%). In addition, the two subgroups
science. Half of the articles in group 2 were published in journals of
differed in terms of the number of disciplines in which LIS authors
medicine, music, history, other disciplines of the arts and humanities,
published. In group 1, articles by only LIS authors were published in
and political science. Chi-square tests showed a statistically significant
journals representing 29 disciplines, whereas those coauthored by LIS
difference in the distribution of disciplines between the two groups
and non-LIS authors were published in journals from 25 disciplines. In
(p < .05). This confirms that the manual examination can improve the
group 2, articles by only LIS authors represented 27 disciplines,
precision level of sample articles, since the two groups of articles gen-
whereas those by LIS and non-LIS authors represented 15 disciplines.
erated different results.
Fig. 1 shows the changes in the annual proportions of articles in the
12 disciplines with the largest number of articles. The other 16

128
Y.-W. Chang Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134

medicine history
30 30
political science

percentage of articles
25 25

percentage of articles
music
20 20 multidisciplinary
science
15 15
other
disciplines of 10
10 arts &
humanities 5
5
0
0 year

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
30 computer science 30 arts
percentage of articles

25 25 literature

percentage of articles
business &
20 economics 20 linguistics
15 educaiton
15

10 10
5 5
0
0 year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

year

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Fig. 1. Changes in the percentage of articles in the top 12 disciplines by year.

5.2. Research topics 48.6% of articles in group 2 involved LIS-related topics. All 23 LIS-
related topics had a low percentage of articles. Articles on publishing
Table 3 shows a comparison of groups 1 and 2 regarding the re- and publications accounted for the largest part (7.5%), followed by
search topics of articles published by interdisciplinary LIS authors. Up those on library collection (6.9%), libraries (6.1%), and bibliometrics
to 75.7% of articles in group 1 explored non-LIS topics such as music (4.4%). Fig. 2 shows the annual changes in the proportion of articles on
history, domestic violence, healthcare, and language learning. Although non-LIS topics and the top five LIS topics, based on the articles in group
23 LIS-related topics were identified, the percentage for each LIS-re- 2. The increasing trend in percentage of articles on non-LIS topics
lated topic was low, ranging between 0.1% and 3.2%. Approximately mirrors the decreasing trend in percentage of articles on LIS topics.

Table 2
Comparison of distribution of disciplines between articles by only LIS authors and those by LIS and non-LIS authors.
No. Discipline Only LIS authors Non-LIS and LIS authors

G1 % G2 % G1 % G2 %

1 Biology 135 18.0 2 0.5 157 30.3 3 5.4

2 Medicine 95 12.6 48 11.3 129 24.9 17 30.4
3 Computer science 71 9.5 24 5.7 52 10.0 5 8.9
4 Music 60 8.0 58 13.7 0 0 0 0
5 Other arts and humanities disciplines 52 6.9 45 10.6 2 0.4 0 0
6 History 50 6.7 43 10.2 1 0.2 0 0
7 Multidisciplinary science 36 4.8 23 5.4 57 11.0 7 12.5
8 Political science 35 4.7 32 7.6 1 0.2 0 0
9 Art 24 3.2 22 5.2 2 0.4 0 0
10 Literature 24 3.2 22 5.2 0 0 0 0
11 Business and economics 22 2.9 13 3.1 19 3.7 3 5.4
12 Linguistics 18 2.4 12 2.8 2 0.4 1 1.8
13 Education 17 2.3 11 2.6 12 2.3 3 5.4
14 Chemistry 12 1.6 4 0.9 13 2.5 0 0
15 Philosophy 12 1.6 6 1.4 0 0 0 0
16 Law 11 1.5 10 2.4 2 0.4 2 3.6
17 Interdisciplinary social science 11 1.5 6 1.4 1 0.2 0 0
18 Geoscience 10 1.3 9 2.1 4 0.8 0 0
19 Religion 10 1.3 3 0.7 0 0 0 0
20 Plant science 8 1.1 8 1.9 14 2.7 0 0
21 Sociology 8 1.1 7 1.7 1 0.2 0 0
22 Environmental science 7 0.9 4 0.9 9 1.7 1 1.8
23 Engineering 6 0.8 3 0.7 12 2.3 2 3.6
24 Physics 6 0.8 0 0 5 1.0 1 1.8
25 Psychology 4 0.5 2 0.5 9 1.7 1 1.8
26 Zoology 3 0.4 3 0.7 3 0.6 3 5.4
27 Anthropology 2 0.3 2 0.5 4 0.8 4 7.1
28 Agriculture 1 0.1 1 0.2 3 0.6 3 5.4
29 Mathematics 1 0.1 0 0 5 1.0 0 0
Total 751 100.0 423 100.0 519 100.0 56 100.0

Note: G1 denotes the number of articles in group 1 (articles by authors including non-LIS authors affiliated with the NLM); G2 denotes the number of articles in group
2 (articles by authors excluding non-LIS authors affiliated with the NLM).

129
Y.-W. Chang Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134

Table 3 Table 4
Comparison of distribution of topics between two groups of articles. Comparison of distribution of number of disciplinary combinations between
two groups of articles.
No Topic Group 1 Group 2
No. of disciplines Group 1 Group 2
No. of articles % No. of articles % represented by the
authors No. of disciplinary % No. of disciplinary %
1 Non-LIS topics 970 75.7 246 51.4 combinations combinations
2 Publishing and publications 41 3.2 36 7.5
3 Information systems 22 1.7 1 0.2 1 24 28.6 14 48.3
4 Bibliometrics 30 2.3 21 4.4 2 33 39.3 12 41.4
5 Library collection 34 2.7 33 6.9 3 18 21.4 2 6.9
6 Information resources 22 1.7 11 2.3 4 4 4.8 1 3.4
7 Libraries 30 2.3 29 6.1 5 5 6.0 0 0.0
8 Information retrieval 30 2.3 9 1.9 Total 84 100.0 29 100.0
9 Information access and use 18 1.4 17 3.5
10 Information organization 16 1.2 14 2.9 Note: Group 1 refers to articles by authors including non-LIS researchers af-
11 Librarians 15 1.2 15 3.1 filiated with the NLM; Group 2 refers to articles excluding those by non-LIS
12 Digital libraries 10 0.8 8 1.7
researchers affiliated with the NLM.
13 Library service 8 0.6 8 1.7
14 Library and technology 6 0.5 4 0.8
15 Information literacy 3 0.2 1 0.2 Table 5
16 Learning 5 0.4 5 1.0 Comparison of five main types of disciplinary combinations between two
17 Open access 5 0.4 5 1.0 groups of articles.
18 Scholarly communication 5 0.4 5 1.0
19 Archives 4 0.3 3 0.6 Group 1 Group 2
20 Internet 2 0.2 2 0.4
21 Reading 3 0.2 3 0.6 Disciplinary No. of % Disciplinary No. of %
22 Data curation 1 0.1 1 0.2 combination article combination article
23 Digital divide 1 0.1 1 0.2
24 Information ethics 1 0.1 1 0.2 LIS and LIS 322 38.3 LIS and LIS 94 62.7
Total 1282 100.0 479 100.0 Medicine and LIS 130 15.5 Medicine and LIS 19 12.7
Biology and LIS 96 11.4 Education and LIS 3 2.0
Biology, Medicine, 37 4.4 Computer science, 3 2.0
Note: Group 1 refers to articles by authors including non-LIS researchers af-
and LIS Engineering, and LIS
filiated with the NLM; Group 2 refers to articles excluding those by non-LIS
Computer science 31 3.7 Computer science and 3 2.0
researchers affiliated with the NLM. and LIS LIS

Among the top five LIS topics with the highest number of articles, a Note: Group 1 refers to articles by authors including non-LIS researchers af-
slight increasing trend was identified only in articles related to biblio- filiated with the NLM; Group 2 refers to articles excluding those by non-LIS
metrics. researchers affiliated with the NLM.

5.3. Authors collaborating with LIS authors

Table 4 shows the number of disciplinary combinations of authors

for each coauthored article. Approximately 66.2% of articles in group 1
were coauthored, and they covered 80 disciplinary combinations. The
number of disciplinary attributes of authors collaborating with LIS
authors ranged between 1 and 5. However, only 31.3% of articles in
group 2 were coauthored, and they covered 29 disciplinary combina-
tions. The collaborators of LIS authors for each coauthored article were
from up to four disciplines. LIS authors frequently collaborated with
other authors from one or two disciplines.
Table 5 shows five main types of disciplinary combination of co-
authors collaborating with LIS authors for most articles. Although the
Fig. 3. Changes in the percentage of articles by only LIS authors and those by
top two and the fifth types of disciplinary combinations were the same only medical and LIS authors.
between the two groups, a large difference was observed in the per-
centage of articles coauthored by only LIS authors. Fig. 3 shows a de-
creasing trend in the annual proportion of single-authored articles by one LIS author and other non-LIS authors. A slight increasing trend was
LIS authors. This indicates an increase in articles coauthored by at least identified in the top two disciplinary combinations, collaborations

80 80 Information
Non-LIS
70 70 organization
percentage of articles
percentage of articles

60 60 Libraries
50 Publishing 50
and
40 40
publications Bibliometrics
30 Library 30
20 collection 20
10 10
0 0
year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

year

Fig. 2. Changes in the percentage of articles on non-LIS topics and the top five LIS topics by year.

130
Y.-W. Chang Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134

Table 6 Table 7
Comparison of types of institutions between two groups of articles. Distribution of educational background of LIS authors by discipline.
Type of institution Group 1 Group 2 Discipline No. of LIS authors %

No. of % No. of % History 61 23.7

articles articles
Authors affiliated with libraries 2450 56.6 623
Authors affiliated with LIS 19 0.4 19
departments and institutes
Authors affiliated with non-LIS 1857 42.9 227
institutions
Total 4326 100.0 869
Note: Group 1 refers to articles by authors including non-LIS researchers af-
filiated with the NLM; Group 2 refers to articles excluding those by non-LIS
researchers affiliated with the NLM.
between LIS authors and between medical and LIS authors. Other dis-
ciplinary combinations are not shown in Fig. 3 because they produced a
low number of articles and did not show increasing or decreasing
trends.
5.3.1. LIS authors by type of institution
According to the cumulative number of authors contributing to the
articles analyzed in this study, the percentage of authors affiliated with
libraries was higher than that of authors affiliated with non-LIS in-
stitutions. Few authors were affiliated with LIS departments or in-
stitutes in universities. Table 6 shows that the difference in percentages
between authors from LIS-institutions and authors from non-LIS in-
stitutions in group 1 was much lower than that in group 2. Fig. 4 shows
a decreasing trend in the annual proportion of library authors, whereas
an increasing trend was identified in non-LIS authors. This suggests that
LIS authors tended to collaborate with more non-LIS authors to publish
non-LIS articles.
5.4. LIS authors with a non-LIS educational background
Table 7 shows the distribution of non-LIS educational backgrounds
among the LIS authors (41.3%). Although the backgrounds could not be
verified among more than half of the LIS authors, they were identified
as holding diverse educational qualifications. Approximately half of the
LIS authors concentrated on four disciplines: history, medicine, litera-
ture, and music. Most LIS authors with medicine, music, art, and law
backgrounds were found to be affiliated with special libraries matching
their education backgrounds. History was the most common back-
ground of LIS authors, most of whom were affiliated with academic
libraries in universities and archives.
6. Discussion
This study confirmed that LIS authors published in non-LIS journals
Fig. 4. Changes in percentage of authors by institution type.
Medicine 35 13.6
Literature 24 9.3
71.7 Music 23 8.9
2.2 Arts 19 7.4
Law 15 5.8
26.1 Computer science 12 4.7
Geography 8 3.1
100.0 Biology 6 2.3
Economics 5 1.9
Engineering 5 1.9
Plant science 5 1.9
Psychology 4 1.6
Language 4 1.6
Sociology 4 1.6
Environmental science 4 1.6
Philosophy 4 1.6
Education 4 1.6
Business 3 1.2
Religion 3 1.2
Physics 3 1.2
Political science 3 1.2
Anthropology 1 0.4
Chemistry 1 0.4
Communication 1 0.4
Total 257 100.0
across numerous disciplines. This finding, regarding authors publishing
outside their own disciplines, is supported by Haddow's (2015) study, in
which education-affiliated authors and language, communication, and
culture-affiliated authors were found to publish outside their own dis-
ciplines. A study by Higgins et al. (2017) confirmed that librarians
collaborated with non-LIS faculty to publish in non-LIS journals. This
revealed no single disciplinary relationship between the disciplinary
attribute of an institution and those of its members. For instance, not all
faculty members affiliated with LIS institutes receive doctorates in LIS
(Lopatovska & Ransom, 2016; Weech & Pluzhenskaia, 2005). Non-LIS
graduate students conducted LIS-related research (Prebor, 2010). What
these findings do reveal is that the landscape of LIS has kept changing.
American academic librarians were found to be dominant among
interdisciplinary LIS authors. They are required and encouraged to
conduct research and publish their research results (Sugimoto et al.,
2014; Walters, 2016; Wilkinson, 2013). In some cases academic li-
brarians have subject doctorates, suggesting that they have research
abilities and are practitioner researchers. Librarians holding non-LIS
doctoral degrees could be anticpated to conduct non-LIS studies. Al-
though most librarian authors do not receive doctorates, they almost
always have non-LIS undergraduate backgrounds because LIS programs
are offered only by graduate schools in many countries, including in the
U.S., and while these schools may offer undergraduate majors, the ty-
pical credential for professional practice is the master's degree in LIS.
This means that librarians have bachelor degrees, and in some cases
other master's degrees, in non-LIS subject areas; this is especially likely
in the data for the present study, as most of the LIS librarian authors
were American. Librarian authors were further found to have dis-
ciplinary backgrounds matching the subject of special libraries in which
they worked or their positions in academic libraries. For example,
music librarians often have music backgrounds and health science li-
brarians often have medical backgrounds. Although few law librarians
were identified in this study, the same applies (Parker, 2011). While the
details of most LIS authors' educational backgrounds were not avail-
able, specialism in a subject is frequently required for library jobs in the
United States (Ferguson, 2016), and it is probably safe to assume that
most author librarians had non-LIS disciplinary backgrounds.
These diverse disciplinary backgrounds help LIS author librarians in

131
Y.-W. Chang
conducting research that matches their subject specialties, which are
not limited to LIS, and also provides them with opportunities to colla-
borate with non-LIS authors. Health science librarians identified in this
study accounted for the highest percentage of articles published in
medical journals. The collaboration between health science librarians
and medical professionals offers an example of how librarians affiliated
with special libraries have a greater possibility to engage in research
with the professionals they serve. Librarians not only publish in-
dividually, but are also valued by other researchers because they assist
researchers in searching literature and verifying proposed research
(Edmunds Otter, Wright, & King, 2017). Librarians and researchers can
benefit from research collaboration. Although this study found that it
was rare for interdisciplinary LIS authors to be first authors when they
collaborated with non-LIS authors, interdisciplinary LIS authors were
sometimes identified as being members of non-LIS research teams. A
substantial interaction can be expected between LIS and non-LIS au-
thors; this is another type of interdisciplinary activity.
While the findings confirm that LIS authors published in non-LIS
journals, the research topics of approximately half of these articles were
found to be LIS-related. Since these articles were published in non-LIS
disciplines, they can be considered to be on interdisciplinary topics.
Among these identified topics, libraries, librarians, publications and
publishing, and information resources were prevalent. This is affected
by librarian authors who prefer librarianship topics and are applying
research to their practice (Finlay et al., 2013; Lessick et al., 2016;
Sugimoto et al., 2014). Other observed interdisciplinary topics included
bibliometrics, information access and use, and digital libraries. Al-
though these are strongly associated with LIS, other topical aspects of
the research were probably what induced the authors to publish in non-
LIS journals. For example, articles related to information resources in
medical libraries could be published in medical journals, and articles
related to library services for music libraries might be accepted in music
journals. The findings on articles on LIS topics published in non-LIS
journals are consistent with those of Higgins et al. (2017). As men-
tioned earlier, journal selection for submission can be a complicated
process affected by factors such as journal impact factor, journal re-
putation, acceptance rate, and target audience (Dalton, 2013;
Wijewickrema & Petras, 2017). Researchers seeking promotions or te-
nure make efforts to publish in high quality peer reviewed journals
(Peekhaus & Proferes, 2015) and ones which are known to review
committees.
Interdisciplinary LIS authors were seen to prefer to publish in-
dividually, that is, as sole author. This was an increasing trend identi-
fied in non-LIS topics. However, an increasing trend in coauthorship
was also identified. The authorship characteristics are consistent with
those found in prior LIS studies on authorship patterns (Blecic et al.,
2017; Larivière et al., 2012; Mukherjee, 2009). Although some inter-
disciplinary LIS authors collaborated with other authors across dis-
ciplines, they most frequently collaborated with LIS authors. Because
most LIS authors in this study were librarians, the primary collaborators
of librarian authors were other librarians. This is consistent with the
findings reported by Bahr and Zemon (2000).
Authors' research interests and professional backgrounds are
strongly associated with the topics of the articles they publish. When an
article is published by a group of only LIS authors, the topic is likely to
be LIS-related. However, if an article is published by a single LIS author
or LIS and non-LIS authors, it is more likely to focus on non-LIS topics.
After further analysis of the relationship between topics and types of
articles, this study identified that 58.4% of single-authored articles in-
volved non-LIS topics. A similar result was observed in articles co-
authored by LIS and non-LIS authors, in which 51.8% involved non-LIS
topics. The percentage of LIS authors in most co-authored articles was
lower than 50%, and rarely were LIS authors the first or corresponding
authors. However, most articles coauthored by only LIS authors in-
volved LIS-related topics (73.4%). The common LIS background be-
tween LIS authors may facilitate such authors conducting LIS studies
132
Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134
together. Although interdisciplinary collaboration has been en-
couraged, seeking appropriate research collaborators from other dis-
ciplines is challenging for many reasons (Luo, 2013). Further research is
required to determine the real reasons for the difference in the per-
centage of LIS-related topics between articles by only one LIS author
and articles coauthored by only LIS authors.
6.1. Data processing vs manual examination
Findings regarding the research questions were obtained based only
on articles in group 2, excluding non-LIS authors affiliated with the
NLM. The comparison of all analyses using two datasets was intended to
clarify the necessity of classifying authors based on small units in their
affiliated institutions. The trade-off in data processing between the
precision of results and the time required for manual examination is
challenging for researchers. Results confirmed that the laborious
manual examination for identifying the disciplinary attributes of au-
thors was necessary because significant differences were confirmed for
all analyses yielded from two groups of articles. This revealed that the
analysis of authors' disciplinary attributes at the unit level is more
suitable than that at institutional level, which has been frequently used
by studies. However, additional manual examination reduces the
amount of data for analysis. Although laborious manual examination
can improve precision of results, not all researchers are willing to un-
dsertake it.
6.2. Future research
Although their diverse disciplinary backgrounds help LIS practi-
tioner authors in communicating and collaborating with non-LIS re-
searchers, interdisciplinary LIS authors prefer to publish individually.
To understand why this is the case, motivations for publishing in non-
LIS journals could be explored. Another avenue for further research
could be author affiliation analysis. The trend of interdisciplinary re-
search is aligned with an increase in interdisciplinary research centers,
but the disciplinary backgrounds of researchers affiliated with inter-
disciplinary institutions are usually not reflected in their institution
names. The need for considering the diversity in the characteristics of
authors affiliated with the same institution was confirmed in this study.
6.3. Limitations
The main limitation of this study is the inability to determine author
information for all articles. Because some authors have diverse dis-
ciplinary backgrounds, requesting all authors to provide information
related to job experience and educational grounds would the best
method of collecting correct personal information for analysis, but this
is untenable for a longitudinal study and large collection of data
(Abramo, Andrea D'Angelo, & Di Costa, 2012). Therefore, this study
used bibliometric analysis to identify and code the disciplinary attri-
butes of authors. Detailed author affiliation information, including in-
stitution name, subordinate unit name, and job title, can facilitate
identifying the characteristics of authors. However, since most journals
do not provide authors' job titles or biographical information, addi-
tional and considerable labor is required to verify author background
through websites. Some could not be confirmed, and this affected the
precision of data processing; however, their small number means that
the results of this study should not have been influenced. As for the
analysis of educational backgrounds, these kinds of details for most LIS
authors were not available. Results, though incomplete, are provided as
a reference to assist with the explanation of other research results. In
addition, the number of articles by interdisciplinary LIS authors was
underestimated because only the WOS database was selected as the
information source. Other interdisciplinary databases might be used in
future studies to expand the research scope.
Y.-W. Chang
7. Conclusion
Although LIS authors have published articles in non-LIS journals
(Higgins et al., 2017; Larivière et al., 2012), this phenomenon has not
attracted the attention of researchers. This study focused on inter-
disciplinary LIS authors and contributes to a better understanding of the
characteristics of interdisciplinary LIS authors and their articles. In-
terdisciplinary LIS authors with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and
research interests do cross over disciplines. Interdisciplinary LIS authors
do strengthen the interdisciplinary nature of LIS. Several unique find-
ings were identified from this study which can enrich studies on the
interdisciplinary characteristics of LIS. This research demonstrates that
studies on interdisciplinary characteristics of a given discipline should
not be limited to the landscape of that discipline. Interdisciplinarity
means just that. Exploring the interdisciplinarity of a discipline from
the perspective of interdisciplinary researchers is an important ap-
proach.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported by a grant from the Ministry
of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST 105-2410-H-002-117) and
by the Center for Research in Econometric Theory and Applications
(Grant no. 107L900204) from The Featured Areas Research Center
Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project
by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan, and by the Ministry of
Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan, under Grant No. MOST 107-
3017-F-002-004-.
References
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., ...
Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical
review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42, 329–346.
Abramo, G., Andrea D'Angelo, C., & Di Costa, F. (2012). Identifying interdisciplinarity
through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 2206–2222.
Abrizah, A., Noorhidawati, A., & Zainab, A. N. (2015). LIS journals categorization in the
Journal Citation Report: A stated preference study. Scientometrics, 102, 1083–1099.
Aharony, N. (2012). Library and information science research areas: A content analysis of
articles from the top 10 journals 2007–8. Journal of Librarianship and Information
Science, 44, 27–35.
Åströml, F. (2010). The visibility of information science and library science research in
bibliometric mapping of the LIS field. Library Quarterly, 80, 143–159.
Bahr, A. H., & Zemon, M. (2000). Collaborative authorship in the journal literature:
Perspectives for academic librarians who wish to publish. College & Research Libraries,
61, 410–419.
Baskerville, R., Carrera, N., Gomes, D., Lai, A., & Parker, L. (2017). Accounting historians
engaging with scholars inside and outside accounting: Issues, opportunities and ob-
stacles. Accounting History, 22, 403–424.
Bedi, S., & Walde, C. (2017). Transforming roles: Canadian academic librarians embedded
in faculty research projects. College & Research Libraries, 78, 314–327.
Beghtol, C. (1995). Within, among, between: Three faces of interdisciplinarity. Extended ab-
stract of paper presented at the 1995 Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for
Information Science. Retrieved from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/ojs.cais-acsi.
ca/index.php/cais-asci/article/view/396/344.
Blecic, D. D., Wiberley, S. E., Jr., De Groote, S. L., Cullars, J., Shultz, M., & Chan, V.
(2017). Publication patterns of U.S. academic librarians and libraries from 2003 to
2012. College & Research Libraries, 78, 442–458.
Blessinger, K., & Hrycaj, P. (2010). Highly cited articles in library and information sci-
ence: An analysis of content and authorship trends. Library & Information Science
Research, 32, 156–162.
Borrego, Á., & Anglada, L. (2016). Faculty information behaviour in the electronic en-
vironment: Attitudes towards searching, publishing and libraries. New Library World,
117, 173–185.
Chang, Y. W. (2015). Librarians' contribution to open access journal publishing in library
and information science from the perspective of authorship. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 41, 660–668.
Chang, Y. W. (2016). Characteristics of articles coauthored by researchers and practi-
tioners in library and information science journals. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 42, 535–541.
Chang, Y. W. (2017). A comparative study of characteristics of authors between open
access and non-open access journals in the field of library and information science.
Library & Information Science Research, 39, 8–15.
Chang, Y. W., & Huang, M. H. (2012). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in
library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the
133
Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 22–33.
Coonin, B. (2011). Open access publishing in business research: The authors' perspective.
Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16, 193–212.
Crum, J. A., & Cooper, I. D. (2013). Emerging roles for biomedical librarians: A survey of
current practice. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101, 278–286.
Dalton, M. (2013). A dissemination divide? The factors that influence the journal selec-
tion decision of library and information studies (LIS) researchers and practitioners.
Library & Information Research, 37, 33–57.
Edmunds Otter, M. L., Wright, J. M., & King, N. V. (2017). Developing the librarians' role
in supporting grant applications and reducing waste in research: Outcomes from a
literature and survey in the NIHR research service. New Review of Academic
Librarianship, 23, 258–274.
Ferguson, J. (2016). Additional degree required? Advanced subject knowledge and aca-
demic librarianship. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16, 721–736.
Finlay, S. C., Ni, C., Tsou, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Publish or practice? An ex-
amination of librarians' contributions to research. portal: Libraries and the Academy,
13, 403–421.
Glenn, E., & Rolland, B. (2010). Librarians in biomedical research: New roles and op-
portunities. Information Outlook, 14, 26–29.
Haddow, G. (2015). Research classification and the social sciences and humanities in
Australia: (Mis)matching organizational unit contribution and the impact of colla-
boration. Research Evaluation, 24, 325–339.
Hessey, R., & Willett, P. (2013). Quantifying the value of knowledge exports from li-
brarianship and information science research. Journal of Information Science, 39,
141–150.
Higgins, M., DeVito, J. A., Stieglitz, S., Tolliver, R., & Tran, C. Y. (2017). Better together:
An examination of collaborative publishing between librarians and STEM and health
sciences faculty. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 86. Retrieved from
http://istl.org/17-spring/refereed2.html.
Huang, M. H., & Chang, Y. W. (2011). A study of interdisciplinarity in information sci-
ence: Using direct citation and co-authorship analysis. Journal of Information Science,
37, 369–378.
Hurd, J. M. (1992). Interdisciplinary research in the sciences: Implications for library
organization. College & Research Libraries, 53, 283–297.
Huse, A., & Knight, M. (2016). Research first? Assessing the role of special collections
librarians in academia. The Reading Room, 1. Retrieved from http://readingroom.lib.
buffalo.edu/readingroom/PDF/vol1-issue2/Research-First.pdf.
Janke, R., & Rush, K. L. (2014). The academic librarian as co-investigator on an inter-
professional primary research team: A case study. Health Information and Libraries
Journal, 31, 116–122.
Järvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (1990). Content analysis of research articles in library and
information science. Library and Information Science Research, 12, 395–421.
Kodama, H., Watatani, K., & Sengoku, S. (2013). Competency-based assessment of aca-
demic interdisciplinary research and implication to university management. Research
Evaluation, 22, 93–104.
Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L., & Crumley, E. (2004). A content analysis of librarianship
research. Journal of Information Science, 30, 227–239.
Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., & 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, 63, 997–1016.
Lessick, S., Perryman, C., Billman, B. L., Alpi, K. M., De Groote, S. L., & Babin, T. D., Jr.
(2016). Research engagement of health sciences librarians: A survey of research-re-
lated activities and attitudes. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104, 166–173.
Lindquist, T., & Gilman, T. (2008). Academic/research librarians with subject doctorates:
Data and trends 1965-2006. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8, 31–52.
Lindquist, T., & Gilman, T. (2010). Academic/research librarians with subject doctorates:
Experiences and perceptions, 1965–2006: Supplementary material. portal: Libraries
and the Academy, 10(4), 399–412.
Lopatovska, I., & Ransom, E. (2016). The state of l-schools: Intellectual diversity and
faculty composition. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(1), 18–35.
Luo, L. (2013). Being interdisciplinary: A look into the background and experience of
iSchool faculty members. Libres, 23. Retrieved from https://www.libres-ejournal.
info/1034/.
Macauley, P., Evans, T., & Pearson, M. (2010). Australian PhDs by LIS educators, re-
searchers and practitioners: Depicting diversity and demise. Library and Information
Science Research, 32, 258–264.
Mukherjee, B. (2009). Scholarly research in LIS open access electronic journals: A bib-
liometric study. Scientometrics, 80, 167–194.
Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). Exploring the black box of journal manuscript
review: A survey of social science journal editors. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 24, 386–401.
Nguyen, L. C., & Hider, P. (2018). Narrowing the gap between LIS research and practice in
Australia. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 67, 3–19.
Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2013). Visualizing and comparing four facets of
scholarly communication: Producers, artifacts, concepts, and gatekeepers.
Scientometrics, 94, 1161–1173.
Nissani, M. (1997). Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: The case for interdisciplinary
knowledge and research. The Social Science Journal, 42, 201–216. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0362-3319(97)90051-3.
Odell, J., & Gabbard, R. (2008). The interdisciplinary influence of library and information
science 1996–2004: A journal-to-journal citation analysis. College & Research
Libraries, 69, 546–565.
Omodei, E., De Domenico, M., & Arenas, A. (2017). Evaluating the impact of inter-
disciplinary research: A multilayer network approach. Network Science, 5, 235–246.
Özçakar, L., Franchignoni, F., Kara, M., & Muñoz Lasa, S. (2012). Choosing a scholarly
journal during manuscript submission: The way how it rings true for physiatrists.
Y.-W. Chang
European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 48, 643–647.
Parker, C. A. (2011). How law schools benefit when librarians publish, teach, and hold
faculty status. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 30, 237–253.
Paul-Hus, A., Mongeon, P., & Shu, F. (2016). Portraying the landscape of Canadian library
and information science research. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library
Science, 40, 332–346.
Peekhaus, W., & Proferes, N. (2015). How library and information science faculty per-
ceive and engage with open access. Journal of Information Science, 41, 640–661.
Pierce, S. J. (1999). Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of inter-
disciplinary information transfer. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 50, 271–279.
Pluzhenskaia, M. (2007). Research collaboration of library and information science (LIS)
schools' faculty members with LIS and non-LIS advanced degrees: Multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary trends. Paper presented at the 8th Conference on Interdisciplinarity &
Transdisciplinarity in the Organization of Scientific Knowledge, Leon, Spain, 18–20 April
2007. Retrieved from http://www.iskoiberico.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/
321-330_Pluzhenskaia.pdf.
Prebor, G. (2010). Analysis of the interdisciplinary nature of library and information
science. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42, 256–267.
Qiu, L. (1992). A study of interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Evaluation, 2,
169–175.
Rochester, M. K. (1995). Library and information science research in Australia 1985-
1994: A content analysis of research articles in the Australian Library Journal and
Australian Academic & Research Libraries. Australian Academic and Research Libraries,
26, 163–170.
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge
creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 340–355.
Saito, Y. (1980). Library and information science journal literature: Their structure
grasped by citation analysis. Library and Information Science, 18, 171–193.
Stone, M. (2014). UK library and information science research is having a significant
influence on research in other subject disciplines. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 9, 56–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B81S5W.
Sugimoto, C. R., Ni, C., Russell, T. G., & Bychowski, B. (2011). Academic genealogy as an
indicator of interdisciplinarity: An examination of dissertation networks in library
and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 62, 1808–1828.
Sugimoto, C. R., Tsou, A., Naslund, S., Hauser, A., Brandon, M., Winter, D., ... Finlay, S. C.
(2014). Beyond gatekeepers of knowledge: Scholarly communication practices of
134
Library and Information Science Research 40 (2018) 125–134
academic librarians and archivists at ARL institutions. College & Research Libraries, 75,
145–161.
Thomas, S. E., & Leonard, A. (2014). Interdisciplinary librarians: Self-reported non-LIS
scholarship and creative work. Library Management, 35, 547–557.
Walia, P. K., & Kaur, M. (2012). Content analysis of journal literature published from UK
and USA. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2109&context=libphilprac.
Walters, W. H. (2016). Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42, 161–171.
Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2015). Worldwide contributors to the literature of library
and information science: Top authors, 2007–2012. Scientometrics, 103, 301–327.
Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2016). Disciplinary, national, and departmental con-
tributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012. Journal of
the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 1487–1506.
Weech, T. L., & Pluzhenskaia, M. (2005). LIS education and multidisciplinarity: An ex-
ploratory study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 46, 154–164.
Wiberley, S. E., Jr., Hurd, J. M., & Weller, A. C. (2006). Publication patterns of U.S.
academic librarians from 1998 to 2002. College & Research Libraries, 67, 205–216.
Wiggins, A., & Sawyer, S. (2012). Intellectual diversity and the faculty composition of
iSchools. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 63,
8–21.
Wijewickrema, M., & Petras, V. (2017). Journal selection criteria in an open access en-
vironment: A comparison between the medicine and social sciences. Learned
Publishing, 30, 289–300.
Wilkinson, Z. (2013). Rock around the (tenure) clock: Research strategies for new aca-
demic librarians. New Library World, 114, 54–66.
Yang, K., Lee, J., & Choi, W. (2016). Publication and citation patterns of Korean LIS
research by subject areas. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 21,
67–81.
Yu-Wei Chang is an associate professor in the Department of Library & Information
Science and a researcher in the Center for Research in Econometric Theory and
Applications at National Taiwan University. She received her PhD from the Department of
Library & Information Science at National Taiwan University. Her research interests in-
clude bibliometrics, information behaviors, and archival studies. She has published in
Information Processing and Management, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Journal of
the Association of Information Science and Technology, and Scientometrics.