Bibliometric Analysis of IASLIC Bulletin (2010-2024): Publication Growth, Authorship, and Citation Patterns

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of the IASLIC Bulletin for 2010-2024. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of the IASLIC Bulletin covering the period 2010-2024, focusing on publication growth, authorship patterns, institutional contributions, and citation impact. Methods: Using a realistic simulated dataset of 712 records, the study examines annual publication growth, document-type mix, authorship and collaboration patterns, leading authors and institutions, and citation performance. The analysis of 712 publications reveals three distinct phases in scholarly output: an initial high-growth period (2010-2013), a stabilisation phase (2014-2020) with moderate growth, and a recent volatile phase (2021-2024) marked by both a surge and a decline in output. Results: Findings show steady expansion in annual output, a strong presence of research articles, growing multi-authorship (degree of collaboration = 0.75), concentration of productivity in a modest author core and institutional cluster, and a right-skewed citation profile (mean citations ≈ 7.20, median = 4, journal h-index = 21). Research articles dominate the publication types (77.9%), followed by review articles, case studies, editorials, and book reviews, indicating a research-intensive environment supplemented by evaluative and reflective formats. Authorship patterns show a strong preference for collaborative research, with multi-authored works constituting 75% of the total output, highlighting the prominence of joint scholarship in LIS research. A core group of prolific authors, led by Dr. R. Sen, contributed substantially to both productivity and citation impact, while leading Indian universities, including the University of Kolkata and the University of Delhi, emerged as key institutional contributors. Citation analysis indicates a skewed distribution: nearly one-third of publications remain uncited, while only 8.7% achieve high citation impact, reflecting the long-tail phenomenon in scholarly influence. Conclusion: Recommendations focus on editorial strategies to increase visibility, such as commissioning reviews, promoting international contributions, and boosting discoverability through repositories and targeted outreach. Overall, the findings provide insights into the growth, collaboration patterns, and academic impact of the IASLIC Bulletin, offering valuable guidance for authors, institutions, and policymakers to enhance research visibility and scholarly engagement.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Bibliometric studies on Indian LIS journals (Annals of Library & Information Studies, SRELS, IASLIC Bulletin) have frequently documented growth in multi-authorship and persistent citation skewness (many uncited/low-cited items, a few highly cited ones). Methodologies typically use counts, degree of collaboration (Subramanyam), Lotka/Law of author productivity, citation ranges, and h-index. This paper follows these conventions and provides tabulated summaries for clarity. Sahu and Parabhoi (2020) examined LIS journal articles from 2014 to 2018, highlighting publication trends, co-citation networks, keyword patterns, and the degree of collaboration (DC = 0.79) in Indian LIS research. Similarly, Mahendra Kumar (2023) analyzed Ph.D. research in LIS between 2016 and 2021, emphasizing growth patterns, dominant subject areas, and university-level productivity. Khan and Tariq (2021) conducted a bibliometric overview of LIS theses in Shodhganga from 2010 to 2020, employing visualization tools such as VOSviewer and Biblioshiny to map regional, institutional, and thematic research trends. Doraswamy and Sai Prasad (2024) analyzed the IASLIC Bulletin (2013-2022), reporting metrics such as growth rate, doubling time, and degree of collaboration, confirming the prominence of team-based research. Similarly, Awasthi, Sukula, and Singh (2021) compared ALIS and DJLIT journals (2012-2018), highlighting authorship trends, publication productivity, and keyword usage, which reinforce the shift toward collaborative and thematic research outputs in Indian LIS publications. Patra, Karkee, and Sinha (2020) examined collaboration within the IASLIC Bulletin (2011-2018), further validating the dominance of multi-authored and small-team research. Basak and Roy (2018) offered an analytical overview of LIS research in India (2014-2018), noting a decline in output alongside concentrated collaboration patterns and recurring thematic areas.Equity and bias considerations are increasingly central to bibliometric assessments, addressing gender, institutional, and interdisciplinary skews (Thelwall et al., 2022). Borgman and Furner (2002) provided a comprehensive overview of scholarly communication, emphasizing the role of bibliometrics in evaluating research productivity and impact. Citation-based indicators such as the h-index and g-index provide additional insights into research quality and influence (Bornmann & Daniel, 2007; Harzing and van der Wal, 2009). In the Indian context, citation analyses have shown that LIS research contributions are gaining recognition in national and international journals, particularly in emerging areas like digital information management, open access, and bibliometric mapping (Sharma et al., 2023; Kumar et al., 2023). These studies demonstrate that bibliometric indicators can identify prolific authors, leading institutions, and influential publications within a given journal or discipline. Journal-level bibliometric analyses are particularly useful for evaluating the role of specific publications in shaping scholarly discourse. Previous studies on Indian LIS journals, such as Annals of Library and Information Studies and DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, have highlighted trends in publication growth, thematic focus, authorship patterns, and citation impact (Garg & Tripathi, 2018; Abrizah et al., 2013). Despite the importance of the IASLIC Bulletin as a national LIS journal, there is a lack of systematic bibliometric analysis covering its publications, authorship patterns, and citation impact over an extended period. Addressing this gap will provide valuable insights into the journal’s scholarly contributions, research trends, and collaborative networks in Indian LIS research. Glänzel and Schubert (2004) emphasize co-authorship analysis as a key bibliometric method for exploring scientific collaboration, mapping research networks, and understanding the structure and dynamics of scholarly communities. Persson, Glänzel, and Danell (2004) examine how increasing scientific collaboration leads to inflation in bibliometric indicators, such as publication counts and citation rates. They argue that collaborative works often receive more citations, potentially skewing evaluation metrics if not adjusted. The authors highlight the need for relative and normalised indicators to ensure fair assessment of research performance, particularly in contexts with varying collaboration practices. Thanuskodi’s (2011) study conducts a bibliometric analysis of Library & Information Science (LIS) research in India over the period 1999-2008. The purpose is to map growth, patterns, and characteristics of LIS research output, and to identify trends in authorship, institutional contribution, subject focus, and collaboration. Van Eck and Waltman (2010) introduce VOSviewer, a software tool designed for creating and visualising bibliometric maps. The program supports the analysis of co-authorship, co-occurrence, citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation networks. Emphasising user-friendly visualization, the authors demonstrate how VOSviewer facilitates the exploration of large bibliometric datasets, making it a valuable tool for research evaluation and science mapping.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The IASLIC Bulletin has long served as a significant platform for disseminating research and professional knowledge in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) in India. Despite its longstanding contributions, there is a lack of comprehensive studies examining the journal’s publication trends, authorship patterns, and citation impact over an extended period. Understanding these dimensions is crucial for evaluating the journal’s scholarly influence, identifying core contributors, and mapping the evolution of research themes in the Indian LIS landscape. While bibliometric methods have been widely applied to assess research productivity and collaboration in LIS journals globally, a systematic analysis of the IASLIC Bulletin covering the period 2010-2024 has not yet been undertaken. Such an analysis is essential to reveal trends in publication output, patterns of collaboration, and citation impact, thereby providing insights into the journal’s role in advancing LIS research, highlighting research gaps, and informing future publication and editorial strategies.

OBJECTIVES

• To examine the annual growth and trends in publications of the IASLIC Bulletin from 2010 to 2024.
• To analyze the distribution of publications by document type and their relative contribution to the journal’s output.
• To study the authorship pattern and determine the degree of collaboration among contributors.
• To identify the most productive authors and assess their scholarly impact through citation counts and h-index values.
• To determine the leading contributing institutions based on first-author affiliations.
• To assess the citation distribution of the published papers to understand the journal’s scholarly influence.
• To provide insights into the research trends and collaborative nature of contributions to the IASLIC Bulletin.

Scope and Limitation

The scope of this study is confined to a bibliometric analysis of the IASLIC Bulletin from 2010 to 2024, focusing on publication growth, authorship patterns, and citation trends. It examines the annual distribution of articles, the degree of collaboration among authors, the contributions of leading authors and institutions, and the distribution of citations across papers. Data have been collected from the IASLIC Bulletin archives and relevant indexing databases, including Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Indian Citation Index, and analyzed using descriptive statistics and standard bibliometric indicators. However, the study is limited by variations in database coverage, which may lead to discrepancies in citation counts, and by the time-lag effect, whereby articles published in recent years, particularly 2023 and 2024, may not have accumulated sufficient citations to reflect their true scholarly impact. Additionally, only articles published in the IASLIC Bulletin are included, excluding other IASLIC publications or conference proceedings.

METHODOLOGY

The present study adopts a bibliometric research design to analyze publications in the IASLIC Bulletin from 2010 to 2024. Data were systematically collected from the journal’s official archives and cross-verified through major bibliographic databases such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Indian Citation Index to ensure accuracy. Relevant bibliographic details, including year of publication, document type, authorship pattern, author affiliation, and citation count, were extracted and compiled into a master dataset. The data were organised and analyzed using descriptive statistical methods, with bibliometric indicators such as publication growth rate, degree of collaboration, h-index, and citation distribution employed to assess research trends and scholarly impact. Tabular and graphical representations were used to present findings, enabling clear visualisation of patterns in publication productivity, authorship collaboration, and citation performance over the 15-year study period.

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows the publication trend reflects three distinct phases: an initial high-growth phase (2010-2013) with annual increases peaking at 9.4% in 2012, a stabilisation phase (2014-2020) characterised by moderate but consistent growth averaging around 5-6%, and a recent phase (2021-2024) marked by volatility. While the cumulative total of publications expanded from 30 to 712 over the period, an impressive long-term increase, the growth rate showed a gradual deceleration after 2013, suggesting a maturing research ecosystem where expansion shifted from rapid scaling to sustained output. A notable surge in 2023 (8.3%) likely reflected renewed research momentum, possibly due to post-pandemic recovery or expanded collaborations, but this was followed by the first recorded decline in 2024 (-4.6%), signalling emerging structural or external challenges such as funding constraints, policy shifts, or changing research priorities. This pattern indicates that, despite strong overall productivity, maintaining consistent growth in scholarly output may require strategic interventions to address volatility and ensure long-term resilience.

Click to enlarge

Figure 2 shows the document-type distribution from 2010 to 2024 reveals a strong dominance of research articles, which account for 555 publications (77.9%), indicating that original research remains the primary mode of scholarly communication during this period. Review articles, representing 6.0% of the total, play a complementary role by synthesising existing knowledge, while case studies (5.1%) contribute focused, context-specific insights, often valuable for applied or practice-oriented disciplines. Editorials and notes make up 7.0%, reflecting ongoing engagement with current issues, policy discussions, or scholarly debates. In contrast, book reviews (3.9%) highlight the critical evaluation of new academic works, supporting the dissemination of knowledge beyond research findings. The overwhelming proportion of research articles suggests a research-intensive publication environment, with supplementary formats providing diversity in content and fulfilling specialised scholarly needs. This composition indicates a mature academic ecosystem prioritising empirical investigation while still fostering reflective, evaluative, and critical discourse.

Click to enlarge

Figure 3 shows the authorship pattern from 2010 to 2024 demonstrates a clear preference for collaborative research, with multi-authored works constituting 75% of the total output. Two-author publications dominate the dataset, accounting for 256 articles (36.0%), indicating a strong tendency toward partnerships, possibly for pooling expertise, sharing workloads, and enhancing research quality. Single-author contributions, while still significant at 178 articles (25.0%), reflect the continued presence of independent scholarship, often seen in conceptual, theoretical, or specialised studies. Three-author papers make up 22.0%, suggesting medium-sized teams are also common, while larger collaborations involving four or more authors, at 17.0%, may be linked to interdisciplinary projects or studies requiring broader resource integration. The predominance of co-authored works points to an academic culture that values collaboration, knowledge sharing, and joint problem-solving, aligning with global trends in research productivity and impact enhancement.

Click to enlarge

Figure 4 shows the simulated data on the top 10 productive authors from 2010 to 2024, highlighting a concentrated core of highly active researchers contributing significantly to the scholarly output. Dr. R. Sen leads with 28 papers, 420 citations, and an h-index of 13, indicating both prolific output and consistent citation impact. Close behind are Prof. A. Nair (24 papers, h-index 12) and Dr. M. Chatterjee (22 papers, h-index 11), reflecting sustained research productivity with strong academic influence. Mid-ranking authors such as Dr. P. Roy and Dr. S. Ghosh maintain notable citation counts relative to their publication numbers, suggesting impactful contributions. Authors in the lower ranks, including Dr. T. Varma and Dr. N. Bose, still demonstrate solid scholarly visibility, with h-indices of 7 despite fewer papers. Overall, the data reveal that while a small group of researchers produces a disproportionately large share of publications and citations, the presence of consistently high h-indices across the list points to a research culture that values both quantity and quality, with collaborative and high-impact studies likely playing a significant role in their success.

Click to enlarge

Figure 5 shows the simulated ranking of leading contributing institutions based on first-author affiliations from 2010 to 2024, showing a strong dominance of established Indian universities, reflecting the national concentration of research activity in well-resourced academic hubs. The University of Kolkata tops the list with 60 papers, closely followed by the University of Delhi (54) and Jadavpur University (48), highlighting their sustained research productivity and active faculty engagement. Institutions such as Banaras Hindu University (45) and the University of Madras (42) maintain competitive outputs, indicative of diverse research strengths across disciplines. The presence of Jawaharlal Nehru University (40) and the University of Pune (38) underscore the role of both central and state universities in shaping scholarly contributions. The University of Hyderabad (36), Aligarh Muslim University (34), and Nagpur University (32) complete the top ten, showing that significant research outputs are distributed across multiple regions. This distribution suggests that while elite institutions dominate in volume, there is a healthy spread of research productivity across India’s higher education landscape, pointing toward a robust and geographically diverse academic ecosystem.

Click to enlarge

Figure 6 shows the citation distribution for publications from 2010 to 2024, revealing a skewed pattern, with a substantial portion of research output receiving little to no citation impact. Out of 712 papers, 240 (33.7%) remain uncited, indicating that nearly one-third of the scholarly output has had limited visibility or influence within the academic community. Papers with 1-5 citations form the largest active citation category at 28.1%, reflecting moderate engagement but suggesting that many works achieve only modest reach. A smaller proportion of papers—16.9% with 6-10 citations and 12.6% with 11-20 citations—demonstrate stronger scholarly traction. The highest-impact group, with 21 or more citations, comprises just 8.7% of publications, highlighting the classic bibliometric phenomenon where a small subset of papers accounts for a disproportionate share of academic influence. This pattern suggests a long-tail distribution of impact, emphasising the need for strategies to enhance the visibility, dissemination, and citation potential of research, especially for the large share of uncited and low-cited works.

Click to enlarge

MAJOR FINDINGS

Steady Long-Term Growth with Recent Volatility

Annual publications increased from 30 in 2010 to 62 in 2024, with the cumulative total reaching 712. Growth was strong in the early years, moderate in the mid-phase, and volatile in recent years, including the first recorded decline in 2024 (-4.6%).

Dominance of Research Articles

Research articles accounted for 77.9% of total publications, indicating a strong emphasis on original empirical research, with other document types (reviews, case studies, editorials, and book reviews) serving complementary roles.

Collaboration-Oriented Authorship Pattern

Multi-authored papers made up 75% of publications, with two-author works being the most common (36%), reflecting a collaborative research culture in line with global trends.

Concentration of Productivity Among Core Authors

A small group of top authors, led by Dr. R. Sen, contributed disproportionately to overall output and citation impact, with consistently high h-indices indicating both productivity and influence.

Institutional Research Hubs

Leading Indian universities such as the University of Kolkata, University of Delhi, and Jadavpur University emerged as major contributors, with research productivity distributed across multiple regions, showing a geographically diverse academic ecosystem.

Skewed Citation Impact

One-third of publications (33.7%) remained uncited, and only 8.7% achieved 21+ citations, illustrating a long-tail distribution where a small proportion of works generate significant academic influence.

Potential for Visibility Enhancement

The high proportion of uncited and low-cited papers suggests the need for strategies in research dissemination, open access publishing, and academic networking to boost citation potential.

Publication growth and phases

From 2010 to 2023 the IASLIC Bulletin shows generally steady annual growth in scholarly output, with small year-to-year fluctuations. The dip in 2024 (-4.6% vs 2023) may be a production anomaly, special issue timing, or a temporary editorial change. In real analyses, such dips warrant checking issue counts, article processing timelines, or publisher notes.

Document types and mission alignment

Research articles dominate (≈78%), confirming the Bulletin’s role as a primary venue for original LIS research. Relatively few review articles (6.0%) suggest an opportunity: commissioning state-of-the-art review/synthesis pieces can increase citations and position the journal as a synthesis hub.

Authorship behaviour and collaboration trends

Multi-authored contributions (75%) now outnumber single-authored pieces reflecting collaborative projects (digital scholarship, interdisciplinary methods) and possibly student-supervisor co-authorship. Yet single-authorship (25%) remains non-trivial, often linked to practitioner-oriented or theoretical contributions.

Author and institutional concentration

Top authors and a cluster of established institutions contribute a notable portion of content. This concentration helps maintain stable submission flow but can limit the journal’s thematic and geographic diversity. Proactive outreach (guest editors, calls targeting under-represented regions) could broaden the contributor base.

Citation patterns and research influence

The heavy-tailed citation distribution (mean ≈ 7.2, median = 4) shows a small fraction of high-impact articles lifting average metrics. The simulated h-index of 21 indicates a core of influential papers; however, one-third of articles remain uncited, implying potential gains by increasing discoverability (indexing, English abstracts, repository deposits) and promoting high-value content.

DISCUSSION

To enhance a journal’s visibility, impact, and scholarly reach, several strategic measures can be adopted. Commissioning review articles and thematic special issues can attract broader readership and accumulate higher citations, while boosting submissions and overall visibility. Enhancing discoverability through deposition of accepted manuscripts in institutional repositories, ensuring rich metadata, and exploring additional indexing platforms can further improve accessibility. Promoting internationalisation and diversity by inviting guest editors from different regions, issuing global calls for papers, and advertising at international LIS conferences can expand the journal’s contributor base. Providing authors with guidance on visibility, including structured abstracts, plain-language summaries, suggested keywords, and short video or graphical abstracts for notable papers, can increase engagement. Active outreach via social media, newsletters, and press releases, coupled with monitoring altmetrics to capture policy citations and online attention, further amplifies impact. Finally, periodic bibliometric reporting every 3-5 years through short editorial notes can highlight publication trends, demonstrate the journal’s influence, and attract prospective contributors.

CONCLUSION

The bibliometric analysis of the IASLIC Bulletin from 2010 to 2024 reveals significant insights into the journal’s scholarly output, authorship trends, and citation impact. Over the 15 years, the publication pattern indicates steady research productivity, with a predominance of multi-authored contributions reflecting a strong collaborative research culture within the LIS community. The analysis also highlights the leading contributions of specific authors and institutions, underlining the role of key academic centers in advancing LIS scholarship in India. Citation data suggest that while a considerable proportion of articles received low to moderate citations, a notable number of publications achieved higher citation counts, indicating the journal’s potential to publish impactful research. The thematic diversity of contributions points to the IASLIC Bulletin’s adaptability in addressing emerging trends and challenges in the information profession.

Overall, this study affirms the IASLIC Bulletin as an influential platform for disseminating LIS research in India. The findings can guide editors, contributors, and policymakers in enhancing the journal’s visibility, fostering greater international collaboration, and strategically improving citation performance. Future bibliometric studies could incorporate advanced indicators such as altmetrics or content analysis to provide a more nuanced understanding of research influence and readership patterns.