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

Aim/Background

This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of the IASLIC Bulletin for 2010-2024. 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.

Methodology

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). Recommendations focus on editorial strategies to increase visibility, such as commissioning reviews, promoting international contributions, and boosting discoverability through repositories and targeted outreach.

Results

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. 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. 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.

Discussion

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

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.