Citation Analysis and Authorship Pattern of the UGC Care List of Group-I Journals of Library & Information Science From 2020 To 2024

The citation analysis of journal articles, impact factors, Eigen factor score, SCImago journal rank, Cite Score, SNIP, h-index, g-index, and many other related indices are important tools in the selection of journals and articles for higher education and research purposes. This article aims to study the citation analysis and authorship collaborations of journals in the UGC CARE List Group I journals of Library and Information Science published from 2020 to 2023, covering up to 2024, by taking the citation data from the Google Scholar Index with the help of Harzing's Publish or Perish (POP). Harzing’s Publish or Perish can be downloaded for free from the website. The software POP calculates the citation databases by restructuring and organizing them. Additionally, files can be imported or exported in Excel, CSV & several other formats. The International Journal of Information Retrieval Research, Journal of Indian Library Association, Knowledge Quest, Art Libraries Journal, and Library Herald are the five Group 1 UGC CARE List journals in Library and Information Science, selected based on receiving more than 100 citations. The journal International Journal of Information Retrieval Research receives a total of 416 citations, with an impact factor of 5.546 & 2.6 averages of 2.6 authors per article. The Journal of Indian Library Association has a total of 411 citations, the second-highest total count and the highest percentage; i.e., 68% of articles in this journal received citations among the other journals. 39.26 % & 38.48 % of articles had single and double-authorship patterns, respectively, which is almost the same when considering all the articles of the journals. The degree of authorship collaboration is 0.607.

Citations, Citation Analysis, Impact Factor, Authorship Collaboration, Google Scholar, UGC Care List

1. Das, A. K., Das, G., and Dutta, B (2021). A selective review of bibliometric studies on Indian physics and astronomy. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 68, 152-169. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Dutta, B., and Sinha, P.K. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of the automatic and semi-automatic ontology construction process. Annals of Library & Information Studies, 65, 112-121. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Jacso, P (2011). The h-index, h-core citation rate, and the bibliometric profile of the Web of Science database in three configurations. Online Information Review, 35(5), 821-833. DOI 10.1108/14684521111176525. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Martin Martin, A. …et al. (2019). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177. Doi :https: // doi.org /10.1016 / J. JOI.2018.09.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Patra, S. K. (2014). Google Scholar-based citation analysis of Indian library and information science journals. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 61, 227-234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Roy, S. B. (2013). JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION: A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 11. Retrieved from https: // digital commons. unl.edu/libphilprac/945 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Sen, B .K. (2014). Top 7 Indian LIS Journals, Annals of Library and Information Studies,61, 253-256 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Mech, E., Ahmed, M. M., Tamale, E., Holek, M., Li, G., & Thabane, L. (2020). Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: A systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases, 26, e20190082. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Harande, Y. I. (2001). Author Productivity and Collaboration: An Investigation of the Relationship Using the Literature of Technology. Libri, 51(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2001.124 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Mondal, D., & Jana, S. (2018). Collaborative Authorship Trend in Leading Indian LIS Journals. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 38(5), 320. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.38.5.12917 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Khan, B., Mondal, H., & Khan, A. (2025). Global Perspectives on Author Productivity in Library and Information Science Literature: A Bibliometric Study. 40(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Singh, B., & Singh, R. (2025). Research productivity and impact of Indian authors in arts: A bibliometric perspective. Journal of Management Research and Analysis, 12(2), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jmra.2025.014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 3–24). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Pathak, V. K., & M., M. K. (2019). Understanding the metrics used to assess the quality of journals. International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health, 6(12), 5368. https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20195501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Bapte, V.D., Gedam, J.S., & Bejalwar, S. (2024). Authorship Pattern and Authorship Productivity in Library and Information Science Literature. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 71(02). https://doi.org/10.56042/alis.v71i2.7129 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]