Authorship in library acquisitions: Practice & theory

Library Acquisitions: Practice & Tl~ory, VoL 20, No. 4, pp. 395--419, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights ~ 1 0364-6408/96 $15.00+.00

Pergamon

PII S0364-6408(96)00080.4

AUTHORSHIP IN LIBRARYACQUISITIONS:

PRACTICE & THEORY THOMAS E. NISONGER Associate Professor School of Library and Information Science 10th and Jordan, Library 012 Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 Intemet: nisonge@indian&edu

Abstract - - Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, volume 1, number 1 (January 1977) through volume 19, number 4 (Winter 1995) is analyzed. A literature review identifies numerous other studies of authorship patterns in library and information science (LIS) journals. This study's major findings are: 80.6% of LAPT authors contributed a single article, while 3.9% wrote four or more; 15.6% of the articles were collaboratively written by two or more authors; 65.4% of LAPT authors were academic librarians and 10.6% were vendors; a majority (53.9%) were male, but longitudinal analysis shows an increasing portion of female authors; and 15.3% of LAPT authors were from outside the U.S. Comparisons are made with other LIS journals and explanations for the findings are briefly speculated upon. Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords - - Authorship, Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Library and Information Science Journals

INTRODUCTION This research project's objective is to provide a profile of authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory (I_APT) covering LAPT's entire history through volume 19, number 4 (the winter issue of 1995). The following questions are addressed: the number and type of authored items published in LAPT; collaborative authorship, i.e., the number of articles written by more than one author; author productivity, i.e., the number of contributions made by individual authors of articles; the gender, occupational type, institutional affiliation, and geographical location of authors who wrote articles; changes in authorship patterns over time; and comparison of the LAPT results 395

396

T.E. NISONGER

with those of other library and information science (LIS) journals. Comparison of LIS authorship patterns with those of other disciplines is not within this article's scope.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF AUTHORSHIP STUDIES IN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE The earliest and undoubtedly most influential study of authorship characteristics in specific library science journals was published by Olsgaard and Olsgaard in 1980. They investigated the gender, occupation, and geographic location of the authors of articles in ten-year runs, generally covering 1968 through 1977, of College & Research Libraries, Library Journal, Library Quarterly, Library Trends, and RQ. [1] The Olsgaards' approach has been used to examine authorship in numerous other LIS journals, including Steer for the Canadian Library Journal from 1968 to 1980 [2], Tate for Library Resources & Technical Services from 1956 to 1980 [3], and Zamora and Adamson for Special Libraries, 1970-1979, the Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1970-1979, Law Library Journal, 1969-1978, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 1969-1978, and Online Review, 1977-1979 [4] - - essentially the same study was also reported two other times by Adamson and Zamora [5, 6]. Williamson used a modified form of the Olsgaards' method to study authorship for the years 1977 through 1986 in five regional library journals from the Southeast: Southeastern Librarian, the South Carolina Librarian, North Carolina Libraries, the Georgia Librarian, and Tennessee Librarian [7]. Another group of studies have investigated various aspects of authorship in specific journals without using the Olsgaard's model. Authorship in Ohio Media Spectrum, 1987-1989, was analyzed by Newren according to two variables: Ohio or non-Ohio residence, and occupation, e.g., K-12, higher education, or "other" [8]. Herubel analyzed the gender and institutional affiliation of authors for 23 years of Libraries & Culture [9]. Raptis analyzed collaborative authorship, gender, occupation, institutional affiliation, and country of origin in five international library science journals for the two bibliographical volumes corresponding to the years 1989-1990: Information Development; International Library Review; Journal of Librarianship; Library Review; and Libri. Unlike most other authorship studies that focus on specific LIS journals, Raptis presented combined results for the five journals rather than separate data for each one [10]. Several investigations of individual LIS journals have contained data on authors' characteristics and/or collaborative authorship as part of broader-focused bibliometric or historical analyzes. One should mention studies of: the American Archivist, 1971 to 1990, by Stephenson [11]; College & Research Libraries, 1939 through 1979 by Cline [12]; 1980-1988 by Metz [13], 1957-1976 by Kim and Kim [14], and Terry's update of Cline and Metz's authorship data for 1989-1994 [15]; the Canadian Library Journal from 1981 to 1991 by Stephenson [16]; Library Resources & Technical Services from 1957 to 1992 by Smiraglia and Leazer [17]; Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 1980 to 1990, by Carter and Kascus [18]; Top of the News, 1946-1987, by Karrenbrock [19]; Public Library Quarterly from 1979 to 1984 by Schrader and Beswick [20]; and Journal of Education for Librarianship from 1960 to 1984 by Schrader [21]. Wallace presented authorship data for Journal of Education for Library and Information Science Education, 1982/83-1991/92, in conjunction with a broader-based study of its publisher, the Association for Library and Information Science Education [22], while Herubel included authors' institutional affiliation in his study of internationality in Libri and International Library Review from 1984 to 1988 [23]. Bibliometric studies of LIS journals that focus on cited references, subject content, methodologies used, or journal ranking without addressing authorship are beyond this literature review's scope.

Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

397

Rather than focusing on individual journals, several investigations of LIS authorship have based :heir analysis on large groups of journals or databases. For example, Krausse and Sieburth calculated the percentage of articles written by academic librarians in 12 leading library science journals, mostly for the years 1973-1982 [24]. Buttlar studied authorship in 16 "basic library science" journals for a two and a half year period from 1987 to 1989, covering gender, occupation/affiliation, and geographic location [25], and did a similar analysis for authors of reviews in 15 library science journals from 1987 to 1989 [26]. Watson studied the occupation of authors in 11 library science journals from 1979 to 1983 [27]. Chapman and Pike profiled authorship characteristics in 10 library science journals from 1988 through 1990, focusing on the contributions of public librarians. Like Raptis, they presented their findings collectively rather than for specific floes [28]. Swigger analyzed the occupational category for 258 authors of LIS articles, randomly selected from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSC1) online from January 1977 through October 1984 [29]. His study was replicated by Mularski who analyzed the occupation of 274 LIS authors randomly drawn from the SSCI between 1986 and 1988 [30]. Dimitroff analyzed institutional affiliation and geographical location for the authors of 277 articles about special librarianship, identified through online searching and published in 1993 or 1994 [31]. Authorship in a bibliography on indexing and abstracting covering 1876 to 1976 was studied by Tsay [32]. Hart, Carstens, La Croix, and May studied collaborative authorship, gender, and institutional affiliation for funded and nonfunded articles selected from the 1986 volumes of 41 refereed LIS journals [33]. A small number of studies have examined submitted manuscripts, comparing the authorship characteristics of accepted and rejected submissions. Tare analyzed manuscripts submitted to Library Resources & Technical Services from July 1979 to June 1980 [34]. A large sample of manuscripts submitted to College & Research Libraries between 1980 and 1991 were similarly investigated by Hernon, Smith, and Croxen [35]. Another dimension of LIS authorship studies concerns the ranking or listing of the most productive authors. LIS educators have been ranked by: Varlejs and Dalrymple who ranked the top 15 according to the number of publications in three LIS databases [36]; and Budd and Seavey who used 1981-1992 Social Sciences Citation Index data to rank the top 27 by journal articles published [37]. Budd and Seavey ranked the 17 most productive academic librarian authors in 36 national LIS journals from 1983 to 1987 [38]; White ranked the 41 most productive authors in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science [39]; White and McCain ranked the 29 most productive authors in Journal of Documentation [40]; Cline listed the six most frequent contributors to College & Research Libraries [41]; Carter and Kascus listed the six authors who contributed three or more articles to Cataloging & Classification Quarterly [42]; Schrader named the seven authors that contributed four or more articles to Journal of Education for Librarianship [43]; and Tsay ranked the 24 most productive authors on indexing and abstracting [44]. Authors have also been ranked by citations to their publications, while LIS education programs and, less frequently, libraries, have been ranked using various citation and productivity criteria (sometimes in the same studies cited above), although these facets will not be reviewed here because they are only indirectly related to authorship. Finally, one should briefly mention a genre of research incorporating a fundamentally different approach to the study of LIS authorship. Instead of focusing on journals or databases to analyze who has published in them, some investigators have surveyed the publication activity of librarians or LIS faculty. For want of better terminology, one might call the former a "journal-based" approach and the latter an "individual-based" approach. One can cite Watson's study of publishing patterns during the early 1970s by academic librarians at ten large research institutions [45], Burlingame and Repp's survey of two groups of academic librarians (those who had and had not published during 1970-1979) [46], and Mularski and Bradigan's examination of publications

398

T.E. NISONGER

between 1979 and 1989 by a sample of the Medical Library Association membership [47], as some examples of individual-based studies. Individual-based methods can provide different types of data such as authors' ages or education levels that are not readily available from journal-based methods, but often the results from the two approaches are not directly comparable with each other. This literature review identified 27 studies that provided journal-specific data on authorship characteristics or collaborative authorship in 33 different LIS journals, although their results were not always useful for comparative purposes. Of the 27 studies, 18 addressed authorship gender in 29 journals; 21 investigations reported data on author occupation for 30 journals; 19 addressed author geographical location in 31 journals; and 11 reported on collaborative authorship in 12 journals. The numerous LIS authorship studies that do not report data for specific journals are not included in these totals. No previous study presenting authorship data for Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory was identified. However, LAPT was included in the 36 journals investigated by Budd and Seavey [48] and the 41 titles used in Hart, Carstens, La Croix, and May's analysis [49], although neither study reported data for specific journals.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RESEARCH Why analyze authorship patterns? Authorship is a major issue in bibliometrics and scholarly communications. It has been studied as far back as Lotka's 1926 investigation of author productivity in Chemical Abstracts and Geschichtstafeln der Physik [50]. In his famous letter to the Journal of Documentation in 1969, coining the term "bibliometrics," Pritchard listed "counting and analyzing the various facets of written communication" [51 ], as falling within the bibliometrics domain. Profiling journal authorship clearly meets Pritchard's criterion as authorship in a scholarly journal is a significant aspect of written communication. Furthermore, authorship characteristics help provide, to use the term of Cole and Bowers, a "sociology of the literature" [52]. They provide an objective measure of who is conducting research in a subject specialty. Finally, profiling the authorship characteristics for a particular LIS journal or group of journals is a well-established research tradition, as indicated by the preceding literature review. Collaborative authorship is an important issue that has frequently been studied in bibliometrics. The extent of collaboration among authors in a discipline or a journal has implications for research quality and the nature of the subject matter being dealt with. As stated by Hart, Carstens, La Croix, and May, "Collaboration is presumed to lead to higher quality research since it often brings together a number of specialists to work on a single project, thus enhancing the overall quality of the research" [53]. Schrader asserts, "In most fields of the natural and human sciences, collaboration is taken to be a sign of development and maturity" [54]. In conclusion, profiling authorship in a journal: 1. Contributes to an understanding of scholarly communication within the journal's discipline; 2. Helps describe the nature of the subject area addressed by the journal; and 3. Places the journal in a comparative context with its peers.

METHODOLOGY This study is modeled on the methodology used by Olsgaard and Olsgaard because theirs is the premier study of authorship characteristics in LIS journals./.APT fulfills the three major selection criteria outlined by Olsgaard and Olsgaard for the five journals they analyzed. It has been in exis-

Authorship in L/braryAcquisitions: Practice& Theory

399

tence for at least ten years, uses an article format, and is "recognized as a nationally known journal of library science" [55]. Support for meeting the third criteria is provided by the fact that in recent years LAPT has usually ranked in the top quartile of LIS journals in the Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (SSCI JCR). For example, I_APT ranked 7th of 54 in 1992 and 8th of 53 in 1993 by impact factor, before slipping to 30th of 59 in 1994 - - the last year for which data are presently available [56]. A ranking of LIS journals by mean impact factor in the SSCI JCR, 1980 to 1992, revealed that LAPTranked 13th of 55 [57]. In the initial analysis, the contents of LAPT were divided into four categories: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Articles; Reports; Reviews; and Other.

"Articles" included historical and descriptive studies, quantitative research, position papers, conference presentations, case studies, and bibliographies. A "report" is defined as a secondary summary of an entire conference, a specific conference presentation, workshop, discussion group, or seminar. A conference presentation under the original presenter's byline was counted as an article, but a presentation summary by someone other than the original presenter was classified as a report. "Reviews," consisting primarily of book reviews, constitute a self-evident category that requires no further explanation. "Other" included editorials by the editor-in-chief, guest editorials, letters to the editor, introductions to major groups of articles, interviews, and signed indexes to yearly volumes. Items to which an author's name was not attached, such as "random notes," forthcoming articles, announcements, and instructions to contributors were not included in the analysis. After a brief statistical breakdown concerning the number of authored items in I.APT, the remainder of the analysis will examine collaborative authorship, author productivity, and authorship characteristics for the articles published in I.APT. The primarily focus is on articles because these are the most scholarly items; unlike reports, reviews, editorials, interviews, and letters to the editor, they are refereed. Moreover, this strategy facilitates comparison with authorship studies of other LIS journals. Authorship is defined as the person or persons whose byline is attached to an item or who is identified in a footnote as an author. (In almost all cases authors were also listed in the Table of Contents). Modeled on the methodology used in Olsgaard and Olsgaard and numerous other authorship studies, each instance of authorship is considered a separate data point for analysis. Accordingly, an article coauthored by three people and an individual who authored three separate articles would both be counted as three authorship cases. Information concerning the author's rifle, institutional affiliation, and geographical location was taken from the byline for each item. Following Olsgaard and Olsgaard, this information was accepted as stated without further verification. Gender was determined from the author's name. In some cases definitive gender identification required consultation of an authoritative name dictionary [58] or, for Chinese, Thai, Arabic, and South Asian names, native speakers. The data were gathered through personal examination of the nineteen LAPT volumes under analysis. For many but not all variables the results are presented in four increments (volumes 1-5, 1977-1981; volumes 6-10, 1982-1986; volumes 11-15, 1987-1991; and volumes 16-19, 1992-1995) for analysis of longitudinal trends. A number of caveats concerning the findings must be acknowledged. In calculating the number of contributions per author, an individual that changed surnames, such as a female with a new marital status, would have been counted as two separate authors. Geographical location is based

400

T.E. NISONGER

on institutional affiliation rather than the author's national origin; acco~ingly, a U.S. citizen employed at a library in Canada would be counted as Canadian, a British subject employed in the U.S. would be considered American, etc. The authorship information reported in the byline could conceivably be inaccurate because of a change in the author's position and/or institutional affiliation in the lag time between submission and publication [59]. However, it seems highly improbable that these situations would occur with enough frequency to significantly skew the results. This article seeks to place LAPT authorship patterns in a comparative context with other LIS journals. It should be recognized that authorship data from different studies can vary in such aspects as: the time period covered; whether data were gathered for principal authors only or all authors; the units analyzed, e.g., articles, reviews, etc.; how the units were defined; and how the categories used to break down the data were def'med. Accordingly, the one-on-one comparison of authorship data from two different studies should be undertaken with considerable caution. Nevertheless, valid inferences can reasonably be drawn by placing/APT's result in a comparative context with dozens of other studies. If on a particular variable LAPT's finding places it fifth among 30 reported LAPT presumably ranks higher on that variable than the majority of LIS journals.

RESULTS AND COMPARISONS WITH OTHER LIS JOURNAL STUDIES Table 1 tabulates the number of authored items in/.APT through the end of volume 19. It can be observed that 1,169 authored items were published. The majority (54.2%) were articles, followed by reports (20.5%) then reviews (16.3%). Longitudinal analysis shows a consistent increase in the total number of published items, rising from 174 for the first five volumes to 263 for volumes 6-10, 361 for volumes 11-15, and 371 for the most recent four volumes. It is noteworthy that during volumes 16-19 the absolute number of reports (92), reviews (93), and the "other" category (29) was larger than for any earlier five-volume increment - - undoubtedly reflecting the fact that the page count was raised from 400 to 500 pages beginning with volume 16 [60]. The division of authored items among the four categories has varied noticeably. Yet when volumes 1-5 are compared with volumes 16-19, the proportion of reports has increased from 12.1% to 24.8% and reviews from 9.2% to 25.1%. Using the counting method explained in the methodology section, there are 1,343 author data sets for all items. The remainder of this section will examine collaborative authorship, author productivity, and authorship characteristics for the 634 articles published in LAPT.

COLLABORATIVE AUTHORSHIP Data concerning collaborative authorship in/_APT are presented in Table 2. For LAPT's fLrst 19 volumes, 84.4% of the articles (535 of 634) had a single author, while 15.6% (99 of 634) were collaboratively written by two or more authors. Of the 99 collaboratively written articles, 78 had 2 authors, 14 had 3 authors, 4 had 4 authors, 2 had 5 authors, and 1 six authors. The number of author data sets for articles is 765. No linear, longitudinal pattern is apparent, as the percentage of collaboratively written articles stood at 17.0% for volumes 1-5; 21.4% for volumes 6-10; 9.4% for volumes 11-15, and 19.1% for volumes 16-19. It should be noted that the rate of collaborative authorship was, as expected, lower for reports (7.5%), reviews (1.0%), and the "other" category (12.5%). The rate of collaborative authorship for LAPT articles - - 15.6% - - is lower than the figure reported in many other LIS studies, e.g., 32.8% for funded articles and 24.9% for non-funded articles by Hart, Carstens, LaCroix, and May [61], 29.9% by Dimitroff in special librarianship [62], 31.6% by Buttlar in 16 LIS journals [63], 30% by Budd and Seavey in ten "key LIS journals" [64],

Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

401

TABLE 1 S U M M A R Y O F A U T H O R E D ITEMS I N / . A P T Volumes

Authored Items

Percentage

V. 1-5 Articles Reports Reviews Other

112 21 16 25

64.4% 12.1% 9.2% 14.4%

174

100.1%

131 62 47 23

49.8% 23.6% 17.9% 8.7%

263

100%

Total V. 6-10 Articles Reports Reviews Other Total V. 1!-15 Articles Reports Reviews Other Total V. 16-19 Articles Reports Reviews Other Total Total for V. 1-19 Articles Reports Reviews Other Total

234 65 35 27 361

157 92 93 29 371

64.8% 18.% 9.7% 7.5% 100%

42.3% 24.8% 25.1% 7.8% 100%

634 240 191 104

54.2% 20.5% 16.3% 8.9%

1169

99.9%

Note. Percentages do not always add to 100 due to rounding.

29.8% by Frost for source articles about online public access catalogs [65]; 25.9% b y Mitterrneyer and Houser in library administration [66]; 22.1% by Frohmann in the literature o f cataloging and classification [67]; 20.1% b y Bottle and Efthimiadis in a sample o f five U S - r e l a t e d bibliographical databases for 1983 [68]; and 17.7% by K o r y m y k in a sample o f articles written by LIS Ph.D.s [69], but s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than the 14.0% w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e for the five j o u r n a l s s t u d i e d b y W i l l i a m s o n and W i l l i a m s o n [70], the 13.54% in Raptis's five international j o u r n a l s [71], and

402

T.E. NISONGER

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF COLLABORATIVE AUTHORSHIP IN LAPT

Volumes

Number of Articles

Number with One Author

% with One Author

Number with Two % with Two or More Authors or More Authors

V. !-5 V. 6-10 V. 11-15 V. 16-19

112 131 234 157

93 103 212 127

83.0% 78.6% 90.6% 80.9%

19 28 22 30

17.0% 21.4% 9.4% 19.1%

Total

634

535

84.4%

99

15.6%

13.1% reported by C h u n g in the literature o f international classification systems [72]. Table 3 tabulates the c o l l a b o r a t i v e authorship rates reported for specific LIS journals. It can be o b s e r v e d that L A P T ' s p r o p o r t i o n o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y w r i t t e n a r t i c l e s is l o w e r t h a n in t h e Canadian Library

Journal, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Journal o f Education f o r Librarianship, the South Carolina Librarian, and Southeastern Librarian, but h i g h e r than the American Archivist, the Georgia Librarian, Library Resources & Technical Services, North Carolina Libraries, Tennessee Librarian, and Top o f the News. W h i l e LAPT's c o l l a b o r a t i v e authorship rate is greater than the c u m u l a t i v e 1 9 3 9 - 1 9 7 9 figure reported b y Cline for College & Research Libraries, it is l o w e r than the rates f o u n d by M e t z and Terry. In fact, Cline, M e t z , and Terry discovered, based on analysis o f

TABLE 3 C O L L A B O R A T I V E A U T H O R S H I P R A T E S I N LIS J O U R N A L S

Journal

American Archivist Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Canadian Library Journal College & ResearchLibraries College & ResearchLibraries College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries Georgia Librarian Journal of Educationfor Librarianship Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory Library Resources & TechnicalServices North Carolina Libraries South Carolina Librarian Southeastern Librarian TennesseeLibrarian Top of the News

Collaborative Authorship Rate

Years Covered

12.1%

197 ! - 1 9 9 0

19.5% 17.1% 59.5% 45.9% 31.9% 10.65% 12.6% 33.3% 1 15.6% 14.5% 10.0% 19.4% 19.0% 14.3% 11.6%2

1980-1990 1981 - 1991

1989-1994 1985-1989 1980-1984 1939-1979 1977-1986 early 1980s 1977-1995 1957-1992 1977- i 986 1977-1986

1977-1986 1977-1986 1946-1987

Authors of Study Stephen son Carter & Kascus Stephen son Terry Metz Metz Cline Williamson & WiUiamson Schrader Nisonger Smiraglia & Leazer Williamson & Williamson Williamson & Wiiliamson W'dliamson & Williamson Williamson & Williamson Karrenbroek

ISchrader reported "one out of three" without stating a percentage. 2Karrenbrock reported that I 1.6% of items had two to five authors and 87.8% one author, leaving 0.6% of items unaccounted for.

Authorshipin LibraryAcquisitions:Practice& Theory

403

five-year intervals, that the percentage of coauthored articles in College & Research Libraries consistently increased throughout its history, rising from 4.35% for 1939-1944 to 45.9% for 1985-1988 to 59.5% during 1989-1994 [73,74,75]. Similar findings of a longitudinal trend towards greater authorship collaboration were reported by Schrader for Journal of Education for Librarianship [76], and by Williamson and Williamson for their five journals [77]. However, a longitudinal trend towards increased collaboration is not apparent in LAPT.

AUTHOR PRODUCTIVITY Table 4 analyzes authorship distribution by the number of articles contributed. To be consistent with other LIS journal studies and general academic practice, a coauthored article counts as a full article. It is no surprise that a relatively small proportion of authors made multiple contributions, while the vast majority contributed a single article. For instance, one author contributed 10 articles, 2 contributed 7, and 10 authors wrote 5 articles each, while 67 individuals contributed 2 articles and 458 authors contributed a single article each. The 22 authors (3.9% of all I.APT authors) who contributed 4 or more articles to I.APT are listed in Table 5. None of them are listed in the other studies of author productivity summarized in the Literature Review Section. Of the 568 individuals who authored I_APT articles, 80.6% (458) made only a single contribution. The corresponding figures from other studies are: 77% in the American Archivist by Stephenson [78]; 80% in College & Research Libraries by Cline [79]; "over 80 percent" in the Journal of Education for Librarianship by Schrader [80]; 78.0% by Tsay in indexing and abstracting [81]; 75.1% by Schorr in map librarianship [82]; 87.6% by Voos in information science [83]; 77.8% by Krausse and Sieburth for academic librarians in 12 journals [84]; and 89% for 8 national library science journals and 90% for two public library periodicals by Chapman and Pike [85]. It should be briefly noted that the most influential study of author productivity patterns can be traced to Lotka's 1926 discovery that about 60% of authors in a data set contribute a single article. Formulating the bibliometric pattern known as "Lotka's Law" he also hypothesized that the number of authors making n contributions would be approximately lln 2 of the number making a single

TABLE 4 AUTHOR PRODUCTIVITY BY NUMBER OF ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED Numberof Numberof Authors Articles Contributingthat Number

Percentageof IndividualAuthors

10 7

1 2

5 4 3 2 1

I0 9 21 67 458

0.4 1.8 !.6 3.7 11.8 80.6

Total

568

100.11

lDoes not add to 100%due to rounding.

0.2

T.E. NISONGER

404

TABLE 5 MOST FREQUENT CONTRIBUTORS OF ARTICLES TO LAPT, VOLUMES 1-19 Author Joseph W. Barker Christian M. Boissonnas Gary M. Shirk Richard Abel Adrian W. Alexander Deana L. Astle Scott R. Bullard Wanda V. Dole Thomas W. Leonhardt Jane Maddox Thomas E. Nisonger Joyee L. Ogburn John R. Secor Sharon C. Bonk Jennifer Cargill William Fisher G. E. Gorman Charles Hamaker Frederick C. Lynden Edward P. Miller Meta Nissley Barbara A. Winters

Articles Contributed 10 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Note. Reports, Book Reviews, Editorials, and Introductions

to Groups of Articles are not included in this total.

contribution. In other words, the number of authors making two contributions would be 1/4 those making one; the number making three would be 1/9 those making one, etc. [86]. As over 430 items had already been published on Lotka's Law by the early 1980s [87], a formal application or detailed explanation is beyond this article's scope. It is nevertheless evident from direct examination of the data that LAPT's authorship pattern does not conform to a precise Lotkian distribution. For explanations of Lotka's Law the reader is referred to Cline, [88] Coile [89], or Pao [90].

OCCUPATION/INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION OF I.APT AUTHORS The occupation of I.APT authors is tabulated in Table 6. It is probably no surprise that the majority of/_APT authors - - 65.4% for the entire 19 volumes studied - - have been academic librarians. A further breakdown indicates that 56.5% (278 of 492) of these academic librarians were associated with Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institutions, 36.2% (178) with non-ARL university libraries, 6.7% (33) with college libraries, and 0.6% (3) with community college libraries. The second largest occupational category in Table 6, vendors, accounts for 10.6% of I.APT authors while faculty and students in library and information science education programs represent 8.5% of LAPT authorship. It was necessary to create a single LIS education category due to the

Authorship in L/brary Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

405

TABLE 6 OCCUPATION/INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION OF LAPT AUTHORS Vols. 1-5 Occupation/Affiliation Academic Librarians Other Librarians LIS Faculty/Students Non-US Faculty/Students Vendors Publishing Other Total

No.

Vols. 6-10

Vols. 11-15

Vols. 16--19

No.

No.

%

No.

%

58.5% 6.2% 13.8% 5.4% 3.8% 3.1% 9.2%

116 10 6 3 21 2 9

69.5% 6.0% 3.6% 1.8% 12.6% 1.2% 5.4%

154 58.6% 4 1.5% 27 10.3% 5 1.9% 44 16.7% 11 4.2% 18 6.6%

130 100.0%

167

100.1%

263 99.8%

76 8 18 7 5 4 12

%

%

Total NO.

%

146 76.0% 5 2.6% 13 6.8% 3 1.6% I0 5.2% 3 1.6% 12 6.3%

492 27 64 18 80 20 51

65.4% 3.6% 8.5% 2.4% 10.6% 2.7% 6.8%

192 100.1%

752

100.0%

Note. Four authors had no stated affiliation, while the affiliation of nine others could not be determined. Columns do not always add to precisely 100% due to rounding.

fact that in innumerable instances the byline identified a LIS education program without indicating the author's rifle. The unidentified authors could have been faculty, students, or staff. Nevertheless, one can confidently conclude that a large majority of the 1.APT authors aff'diated with a LIS education program actually were faculty because other studies indicate faculty are the most frequent type of author associated with a LIS education program and many of the unidentified authors are known to be faculty members. The 27 "other librarians" are comprised of 12 authors working at national libraries, 8 public librarians, 5 special librarians, 1 school librarian, and 1 author employed at a state library. Finally, the "other" category includes: 17 authors associated with what could be termed "library-oriented" organizations, such as library consortium_s, bibliographic utilities, or the Association of Research Libraries; 15 authors affiliated with such nonlibrary organizations as the Moral Majority or the Boston Women's Health Collective; and 5 consultants. Several other studies of LIS authorship have also identified academic librarians as the most productive occupational category, even though the actual proportion of articles by academic librarians was lower than in 1.APT. The percent was found to be: 44.2% by Watson [91]; 34.4% by Krausse and Sieburth [92]; 49.8% by Dimitroff [93]; and 31.78% by Swigger [94]. In contrast, Mularski's research found only 15.7% of LIS authors to be academic librarians, behind non-LIS faculty (28.8%) and LIS faculty (17.9%) [95]. Zamora and Adamson reported 5.8% for -'Jaeproportion of academic librarians in their five journals, but they used different definitions of occupational categories [96]. Table 7 summaries authors' occupational category/institutional affiliation as reported in studies of specific LIS journals, focusing on four categories: academic librarians, other librarians, authors affiliated with LIS education programs, and nonlibrary/non-academic authors. In many cases it was necessary to combine the original data into broader categories, e.g., compiling data for school, public, special, and national librarians under the heading "other librarian." The largest portion of authors were academic librarians in more than two-thirds of the cases with data for more than a single category, thus corresponding to LAPT's pattern. However, LAPT's percentage of academic librarian authors was higher than all but 4 of the 48 other cases on Table 7. Two studies of

406

T.E. NISONGER

TABLE 7 AUTHORS' OCCUPATION/INSTITUTIONAL AFbTLIATIONIN LIS JOURNALS

Journal

Academic Librarians

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 1 2.6% Canadian Library Journal2 25.6% Canadian Library Journal3 24.1% College & Research Libraries4 69.40% College & Research Libraries5 56.12% College & Research Libraries6 65.4% College & Research Libraries7 58.70% College & Research Librar/es8 51.6% College & Research Libraries9 56.0% College & Research Libraries 10 60.9% College & Research Libraries I1 57% Drexel Library Quarterly9 22.8% Georgian Librarian 12 43.6% Information Technology and Libraries6 41.7% Journal of Academic Librarianship6 83.4% Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 13 72.3% Journal of Library Administration9 35.2% Journal of Library History6 28.6% Journal of Library History 13 25.9% Journal of the American Society for Information Science 14 2.2% Law Library Journal I i .6% Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 15 65.4% Library and Information Science Research6 23.2% Library Journal6 32.2 % Library Journal8 18.9% Library Journa~ 21.0% Library Quarterly6 21.9% Library Quarterly8 19.0% Library Quarterly9 20.2% Library Resources & Technical Services6 57.3% Library Resources & Technical Services 16 46.4% Library Resources & Technical Servicesl 7 54.8% Library Resources & Technical Services 18 54.6% Library Resources & Technical ServiCes9 49.8% Library Trends 6 21.3% Library Trends 19 23.9% Library Trends 9 19.6% North Carolina Libraries 12 32.9% Online Review20 8.3% Public Library Quarterly21 Not Reported RQ6 44.0% RQ22 44.8% RQ9 47.1% Serials Librarian6 58.9% Serials Librarian23 44.7% South Carolina Librarian 12 38.0% Southeastern Librarian 12 55.1% Special Libraries9 27.0%

Other Librarians

LIS Education

Non-Library Non-Academics

72.9% 38.0% Not Reported 3.2% 14.36% 4.2% 16.34% 4.2% Not Reported 6.9% 3.2% Not Reported 36.4% 14.0% 2.7% Not Reported Not Reported 2.9% Not Reported

6.8% 18.3% 24.4% 18.1% 10.11% 11.6% 8.56% 19.5% Not Reported 8.4% 17.4% Not Reported 4.5% 3.0% 8.7% Not Reported Not Reported 42.3% Not Reported

5.4% 14.3% Hot Reported Not Reported Hot Reported 9.4% Not Reported 16.6% Not Reported Not Repotted Not Reported Not Repotted 10.9% 35.4% 3.3% Not Reported Not Reported 10.1% Not Reported

6.9% 65.0% 3.6% 3.6% 29.0% 25.0% Not Reported 6.6% 8.4% Not Reported 15.2% 29.9% 19.4% 12.9% Not Reported 21.9% 19.5% Not Reported 42.8% 28.0% Not Reported 19.5% 18.1% Not Reported 13.0% Not Reported 33.5% 16.3% Not Reported

18.3% 1.1% 8.5% 55.1% 16.6% 22.8% Not Reported 48.8% 34.4% Not Reported 16.9% 15.1% 17.8% 21.3% Not Repotted 28.9% 22.0% Not Reported 10.3% 3.2% 37% 19.3% 21.3% Not Reported 5.8% Not Reported 15.2% 17.0% Not Reported

30.9% 10.4% 20.1% 7.8% 19.0% 28.9% Not Reported 9.6% 21.3% Not Reported 10.7% 8.5% 6.9% 10.2% Not Reported 19.3% 26.9% Not Reported 11.1% 57.3% Not Reported 13.9% I 1.3% Not Reported 18.4% Not Reported 2.5% 3.4% Not Reported (Continued)

Authorship in LibraryAcquisitions:Practice& Theory

407

TABLE 7 Continued

Journal

SpecialLibraries14 TennesseeLibrarian12 Top of the News24

Academic Librarians 13.6% 44.2% Not Reported

Other Librarians 49.4% 24.6% Not Reported

LIS Education ! 1.4% 10.8% 10.1%

Non-Library Non-Academics 20.1% 16.3% Not Reported

lZamora & Adamson, covering years 1969-1978. 2Steer, covering years 1968-1980. 3Stephenson, covering years 1981-1991. 'lTerry,coveting years 1989--1994for primary authors only. 5Metz, covering years 1980-1988 for principal authors only. The "Other Librarians" category includes 6.65% affiliated with "foreign libraries," which could include academic librarians. 6Watson, covering years 1979-1983. 7Cline, coveting years 1939-1979 for principal authors only. The "Other Librarians" category includes 3.55% affiliatedwith ''foreign libraries" which could include academic librarians. 8Olsgaard & Olsgaard, coveting years 1968-1977. 9Krausse & Sieburth, covering years 1973-1982. 10Kim& Kim, covering years 1957-1966. llKim & Kim, covering years 1967-1976. 12Williamson, coveting years 1977-1986. 13Krausse & Sieburth, coveting years 1975-1982. 14Zamora& Adamson,covering years 1970-1979. 15Nisonger' covering years 1977-1995. 16Tate, coveting years 1957-1967. 17Tate,coveting years 1968-1977. 18Tate, covering years 1978-1980. 19OIsgaard& OIsgaard, coveting years 1967/68-1976/77. 20Zamora & Adamson, covering years 1977-1979. 21Schrader and Beswick, covering years 1979-1984. 22OIsgaard& OIsgaard, covering years 1968-1976/77. 23Krausse & Sieburth, covering years 1976-1982. 24Karrenbrock, coveting years 1946-1987.

Journal of Academic Librarianship and Terry's update for College & Research Libraries reported a higher rate o f academic librarian authorship, while Watson's study o f College & Research Libraries reported the exact percentage. Both these journals are obviously focused towards academic librarianship. The proportion for the second largest group o f I_APT authors, vendors, can not be directly compared with findings from other LIS journal studies because they included vendors in broader categories such as "corporate sector, .... other," or "non-librarian/non-academic" instead o f presenting separate data for vendors. Nevertheless, the large proportion of vendors among LAPT authors might explain why LAPT displays a higher proportion o f "non-library/non-academic" authors than in all but 7 of the 30 other data sets in Table 7: Information Technology and Libraries, the Journal

of the American Society for Information Science, Library Journal, Library Quarterly, Library Trends (the latter three from the Olsgaards' research), Online Review, and Special Libraries in Zamora and Adamson's study. Because LAPT, compared to other LIS journals, displays a larger portion of academic librarians and non-librarian/non-academics among its authors, it mathematically follows that other occupational

408

T.E. NISONGER

TABLE 8 INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS ACCOUNTING FOR MOST LAPTAUTHORS Institution or Organization University of North Carolina - - Chapel Hill University of California - - Berkeley

Universityof Louisville YankeeBook Peddler Blackwell NorthAmerica PennsylvaniaState University University of Minnesota Cornell University Faxon Indiana University University of Illinois- - Urbana-Champaign Colorado State University

Authors 21 14 14 14 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 10

categories will be represented in LAPT at a relatively lower ram. Aec~rdingly, examination of Table 7 reveals that in all but 5 of 35 other reported cases the proportion of other librarians was higher than LAPT's. The five exceptions were: Watson's study of Journal ofAcademic ldbrarianship; Journal of Library History; Library and Information Science Research; and two studies of College & Research Libraries by Terry plus Kim and Kim. The proportion of authors affiliated with LIS education programs was likewise higher than LAPT's in all but 7 of 38 other instances: Bulletin of the Medical Library Association; College & Research Libraries in Kim and Kim's study for 1957-1966; the

Georgia Librarian; Information Technology and Libraries; Law Library Journal; Online Review; and Watson's study of the Serials Librarian. The institutions and organizations accounting for ten or more authors of LAPT articles are listed in Table 8. The list is dominated by large research-oriented universities and major vendors of library materials. In some cases a single author is responsible for the majority of an institution's or organization's output. It should be stressed that the data presented in Tables 5 and 8 are strictly for information conceming which authors and institutions are contributing frequently to LAPT. They are in no way intended to serve as rankings for evaluative purpose. There is no valid reason for claiming that a person or institution contributing more articles somehow "ranks higher" than one contributing fewer. Evaluative rankings must be based on more than a single journal. Because there is no evaluative intent, totals for academic institutions combine data from all authorship categories. If institutional rankings were intended it would be necessary to present the data separately for libraries and for library and information science education programs.

GENDER OF 1.APT AUTHORS Table 9 presents the distribution of I.APT authors by gender. In 29 of 765 cases (3.8%) it was impossible to determine gender because initials were used rather than a given name, the given name's gender was ambiguous, or the name was from an ethnic group for which no native speaker was available for identification. In the cases for which a definitive gender identification could

Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

409

TABLE 9 GENDER OF 1.APTAUTHORS

Volumes 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-19 Total

Male Number

Percentage

Female Number

Percentage

87 90 140 80 397

65.9% 56.3% 53.6% 43.7% 53.9%

45 70 121 103 339

34.1% 43.8% 46.4% 56.3% 46.1%

Note. Gender could not be determined for 29 authors.

be made, 53.9% of I_APTauthors (397 of 736) were male, while 46.1% were female. However, a longitudinal trend towards an increasing proportion of female authors can clearly be perceived. The proportion of female authors rose during each quarter of LAPT's history; from 34.1% for volumes 1-5 to 43.8% for volumes 6 to 10, 46.4% for volumes 11-15, and 56.3% for volumes 16 to 19. If the data were plotted there would be a near linear pattern towards greater female authorship. Although not revealed in Table 9, the pattern is even more striking when LAPT's first ten volumes are compared with the most recent nine. Approximately three-fifths (60.6% representing 177 of 292) of the known-gender authors in LAPT volumes 1-10 were male, whereas in volumes 11-19 a slight majority of authors were female: 224 out of 4A.A,equaling 50.5%. A volume by volume analysis reveals that the male/female ratio ranged from a high of 78.6%/21.4% (22 of 28 male) for volume 1, 1977-1978, to a low of 34.2%/65.8% (13 of 38 male) for volume 18, 1994. Finally, one should mention that 63.6% (14 of 22) of the authors listed in Table 5 as contributing four or more articles are male. (The author on this table with initials rather than a given name is known to be male.) The following male/female distribution ratios were found in other gender studies of LIS authorship: 76.97%/23.03% by Raptis in 5 international library science journals [97]; 47.83%/52.17% by Buttlar in 16 journals [98]; 51.6%/48.4% by Chapman and Pike in 10 journals [99]; and 43.2%/56.8% by Williamson in 5 regional journals [100]. Limiting her analysis to reviews, Buttlar found a male/female ratio of 48.6%/51.4% in 15 library journals [101]. Table 10 summarizes the authorship gender distribution revealed in studies of specific LIS journals. Careful examination of the table shows that the male/female gender ratio ranges from a high of 78.85/21.15 in Cline's study of College & Research Libraries, 1939-1979, to a low of 17.4/80.8 [102] for Top of the News, a journal that was oriented toward children's and youth services in libraries. I_APTfalls right in the middle, as 22 cases had a higher male-female ratio than LAPT, while 22 had a lower ratio. It is especially noteworthy that, similar to LAPT, several other LIS journals display a trend towards an increasing proportion of female authors. Specifically, female authorship increased over time for the following seven journals: Canadian Library Journal, from 50.1% for 1968-1980 (Steer) to 58.6% for 1981-1991 (Stephenson); College & Research Libraries, from 21.15% for 1939-1979 (Cline) to 35% for 1980-1984 (Metz), 44% during 1985-1988 (Metz), 45.50% for 1987-1989 (Buttlar), and 50% for 1989-1994 (Terry); Library Resources & Technical Services, from 36.7% in 1957-1967 to 38.6% in 1968-1977 and 45.0% during 1978-1980 (all three data sets from Tate) and 52.14% for 1987-1989 (Buttlar); Library Quarterly, from 21.2% during 19681977 (Olsgaard and Olsgaard) to 31.14% in 1987-1989

410

T.E. NISONGER

TABLE 10 GENDER OF AUTHORS IN LIS JOURNALS

Journal

American Archivist Bulletin of the Medical Library Association Canadian Library Journal Canadian Library Journal College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries Georgia Librarian Information Technology and Libraries Journal of Academic Librarianship Journal of the American Society for Information Science Journal of the American Society for Information Science Journal of Education for Librarianship Journal of Education for Library and Information Science Journal of Library Administration Law Library Journal Libraries & Culture Libraries & Culture Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory Library & Information Science Research Library Journal Library Quarterly Library Quarterly Library Resources & Technical Services Library Resources & Technical Services Library Resources & Technical Services Library Resources & Technical Services Library Trends

Library Trends North Carolina Libraries Online Review Public Library Quarterly RQ RQ School Library Media Quarterly Serials Librarian South Carolina Librarian Southeastern Librarian Special Libraries Special Libraries Tennessee Librarian Top of the News

Percentage Percentage Male Female 71.4% 43.1% 49.9% 41.4%

28.6% 56.9% 50.1% 58.6%

50%

50%

56% 65% 78.85% 54.50% 69.5% 32.4% 48.85%

44% 35% 21.15% 45.50% 30.5% 67.6% 51.15%

54.00%

46.00%

76.5% 64.68% 66.7% 30.66% 53.33% 58.8%

23.5% 35.32% 33.3% 69.34% 46.67% 41.2%

69.66%

30.34%

75.38% 53.9% 53.09% 62.5% 67.86% 78.8% 31.93% 63.3% 61.4% 55.0% 47.86% 67.3% 41.6% 40.7% 57.50% 40.97% 58.7% 21.60% 42.86% 42.9% 51.6% 39.66% 52.5% 45.7% 17.4%

24.62% 46.1% 46.91% 37.5% 32.14% 21.2% 68.07% 36.7% 38.6% 45.0% 52.14% 32.7% 58.4% 59.3% 42.50% 59.03% 41.3% 78.40% 57.14% 57.1% 48.4% 60.34% 47.5% 54.3% 80.8%3

Years Covered

Authors

1971-1990 1969-1978 1968-1980 1981-1991 1989-1994 1985-1988 1980-1984 1939-1979 1987-1989 1968-1977 1977-1986 1987-1989 1987-1989 1970-1979 1987-1989 1960-1984 1987-1989 1987-1989 1969-1978 1966-1988 1987-1989 1977-1995 1987-1989 1968-1977 1987-1989 1968-1977 1987-1989 1957-1967 1968-1977 1978-1980 1987-1989 1967168-76/77 1977-1986 1977-1979 1987-1989 1987-1989 1968-1976/77 1987-1989 1987-1989 1977-1986 1977-1986 1987-1989 1970-1979 1977-1986 1946-1987

Stephenson Zamora & Adamson Steer Stephenson Terry Metz Metz Cline Buttlar Olsgaard & Olsgaard grdliamson Buttlar Buttlat Zamora & Adamson Buttlar Schrader 1 Buttlar Buttlar Zamora & Adamson Herubel 2 Buttlar Nisonger Buttlar Olsgaard & Olsgaard Buttlar Olsgaard & Olsgaard Buttlar Tare Tate Tate Buttlar Olsgaard & Olsgaard grdliamson Zamora & Adamson Buttlar Buttlar Olsganrd & Olsgaard Buttlar Buttlar Williamson grdliamson Buttlar Zamora & Adamson grdliamson Karrenbrock

ISchrader does not report percentages, but states "two-thirds of f'wstauthors were male and one-third were female." 2Includes data from the journal's previous titles: Journal of Library History and Journal of Library History, Philosophy,

and Comlmmtive Librarianship. 3Gender could not be determined for 1.8%; other studies excluded undetermined cases before calculating percentages.

Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

411

(Buttlar); Library Trends, from 32.7% during 1967/68-1976/77 (Olsgaard and Olsgaard) to 52.14% in 1987-1989 (Buttlar); Special Libraries, from 47.5% during the 1970s (Zamora and Adamson) to 60.34% during 1987-1989 (Buttlar); and the Journal of the American Society for Information Science, from 23.5% for the 1970s (Zamora and Adamson) to 35.32% during 1987-1989 (Buttlar). In contrast, the proportion of female authorship appears to have decreased in Libraries & Culture as Herubel reported 30.34% for 1966-1988 while Buttlar found 24.62% for 1987-1989, although this conclusion is somewhat ambiguous because the two studies cover overlapping time frames. Zamora and Adamson used a year-by-year analysis during the 1970s to demonstrate increasing female authorship in Special Libraries, the Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Law Library Journal, and the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association [103]. Likewise, Steer found an increasing proportion of female authors in the Canadian Library Journal [104] as did Stephenson in the American Archivist [105].

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF LAPTAUTHORS The geographical dispersion of I_APT authors is summarized in Table 11. The U.S. data are organized by region in accordance with the method used by the Olsgaards and replicated in several other studies. Although some, e.g., Zamora and Adamson [106], have questioned the accuracy of the Olsgaards' assignment of states to regions, they state their approach is based on the method used by the American Library Association's Committee on Accreditation [107]. A small plurality of LAPT authors are from the Northeast (27.0%) followed by the Midwest (26.1%). A majority of I_APT authors (53.1%) are, in fact, from these two regions. Most other studies have also found the Northeast and the Midwest rank as the two most productive U.S. regions. For illustration, in the five journals analyzed by Zamora and Adamson 42.0% of the authors were from the Northeast, followed by 25.9% from the Midwest [108], while the corresponding figures were 28.5% from the Northeast and 27.7% from the Midwest in the 16 journals investigated by Buttlar [109]. The literature review located 24 data sets for specific LIS journals on the regional distribution of their U.S. authors using the Olsgaards' approach. The Northeast was the most productive region in 11 of these data sets, while the Midwest was the leading region for 10. Geographical distribution of authorship among U.S. regions, as emphasized in many earlier studies, seems of questionable value for journals whose national reputation has already been established, although this approach could serve as an indicator of national status for regional and statelevel journals. For nationally-established journals, such as LAPT, analysis by country of origin may be more significant because it indicates international stature. In total, 15.3% of I_APTauthors have been from outside the U.S. As would probably be expected, the majority of non-U.S. I_APT authors were from the world's major English-speaking nations: Australia (33); the United Kingdom (26); and Canada (15). Nevertheless, the worldwide distribution of authorship is remarkable. In addition to the U.S., LAPT authors were from 22 countries representing North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Oceania. A longitudinal breakdown concerning the distribution of U,S./non-U.S. authors in LAPT is presented in Table 12. In the first five volumes only 7.5% of LAPT authors were from outside the United States. Since then the proportion of non-U.S, authors has been much higher and remarkably consistent, standing at 19.9% for volumes 6-10 and 16% for volumes 11 through 19. LAPT has a noticeably higher proportion of international authorship than many other North American LIS journals. Non-U.S. authorship stood at a combined total of 9.5% in the 5 journals

412

T.E. NISONGER

T A B L E 11 GEOGRAPHICAL

DISTRIBUTION

Country

OF LAPTAUTHORS

By Country Number

Australia Bangladesh Canada Denmark Fiji Germany (Federal Republic) Ghana

Hong Kong

33 i 15 2 1 4 1

Percentage 4.4% 0.1% 2.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1%

1

0.1%

Hungary India Italy Jamaica Nigeria Papua New Guinea People's Republic of China Poland Saudi Arabia South Africa Sri Lanka Switzerland Thailand United States United Kingdom

2 3 2 1 8 1 6 1 i 3 1 1 2 640 26

0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0A% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 84.7% 3.4%

Total

756

99.9% 1

U. S. Authors By Region Region

Number

Percentage of U.S.

Midwest 2 Northeast3 Southeast4 Southwest5 West6

167 173 144 59 97

26.1% 27.0% 22.5% 9.2% 15.2%

U.S. Total

640

100.0%

Note. Geographical location could not be determined for nine authors. ITotals do not always add to 100 due to rounding. 2Illinois = 42; Indiana = 14; Iowa = 6; Kansas = 2; Michigan = 10; Minnesota = 17, Missouri = 17; Nebraska = 9; North Dakota = 0; Ohio = 45; South Dakota = O; Wisconsin = 5. 3Connecticut = 5; Delaware = 1; District of Columbia = 14; Maine = 1; Maryland = 9; Massachusetts = 25; New Hampshire = 14; New Jersey = 8; New York = 59; Pennsylvania = 26; Rhode Island = 10; Vermont = 1. 4Aiahama = 13; Florida = 18; Georgia = 12; Kentucky = 19; North Carolina = 45; South Carolina = i 1; Tennessee = 9; Virginia = 16; West Virginia = 1. 5Arizona = 9; Arkansas = 1; Louisiana = 9, Mississippi = 0; New Mexico = 3; Oklahoma = 1; Texas = 36. 6Alaska = 0; California = 52; Colorado = 15; Hawaii = 0; Idaho = 1; Montana = 2; Nevada = 0; Oregon = 15; Utah = 8; Washington = 2; Wyoming = 2.

Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

413

TABLE 12 U.S./NON-U.S. DISTRIBUTION OF I_APTAUTHORS Volumes

U.S. Authors

Percentage

Non-U.S. Authors

Percentage

1-5 6-10 11-15 16-19

123 133 221 163

92.5% 80.1% 84.0% 84.0%

I0 33 42 31

7.5% 19.9% 16.0% 16.0%

Total

640

84.7%

116

15.3%

examined by Zamora and Adamson [110] and 9.0% in Buttlar's 16 journals [111]. In contrast, 15.3% of the authors were from outside the U.S. in the 10 journals studied by Chapman and Pike [112]. Table 13 tabulates the proportion of non-U.S, authors found for other LIS journals. The five regional journals studied by W'dliamson - - none of which had a non-U.S, author [113] - - are not included in the table because one would not normally expect international authorship in a regional [,IS journal. Among 25 cases recorded in Table 13, only four report a higher proportion of nonU.S. authorship than LAPT's 15.3%: Journal of Education for Library & Information Science (16.8%); the Journal of the American Society for Information Science (18.7%); Libraries & Culture (27.9%); and Library & Information Science Research (18.9%). The Olsgaards did not report the percentage of non-U.S, authors because their geographical analysis was limited to regions of the U.S. However, using their raw data, which placed international authors in the undetermined category, one can calculate a maximum limit for the percentage of non-U.S, authors. Accordingly, in the Olsgaards's study the proportion of non-U.S. authors could have been no higher than 11.1% in College & Research Libraries, 21.3% in Library Journal, 9.7% in Library Quarterly, 12.7% in Library Trends, and 9.4% in RQ. (These percentages represent the proportion reported "could not be determined;" the Olsgaards presented no further breakdown between international authors and those whose geographical location was genuinely undetermined) [114]. Applying the same manipulation to Tate's raw data, the maximum possible rate of international authorship in Library Resources & Technical Services would be 12.3% [115]. Also, the proportion of non-U.S, authors in the American Archivist was less than 10% [116]. Higher rates of international authorship have been reported in studies based on databases or explicitly international journals. Dimitroff found that 62.8% of the authors she analyzed were North American and 24.6% European [117], while Bottle and Efthimiadis reported 37.8% of their authors were North American, 33.5% Western European, and 13.4% Eastern European [118]. Raptis' study of five international journals analyzed the author's geographical origin by continent, finding that 37.90% were European and only 21.92% were "American" [119]. Raptis' finding is not unexpected as the five journals under analysis were all published in Europe and most had an explicitly international focus. Most studies have not revealed data by country for international authors. Raptis, however, indicated that the authors in her 5 journals represented 52 countries. She listed the top ten in the following order: the United Kingdom, the United States, Nigeria, India, Canada, Kenya, Australia, Germany, France, and Brazil [120]. Schrader reported that first authors in the Journal of Education for Librarianship, 1960 to 1984, were from 14 countries (without naming them) in addition to the U.S., Canada and the UK [121].

414

T.E. NISONGER

TABLE 13 INTERNATIONAL A U T H O R S H I P IN SPECIFIC LIS J O U R N A L S PcrcCrltage

Journal

Non-U.S. Authors YearsCovered

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association Cataloging & Classification Quarterly College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries Information Technology and Libraries Journal of Academic Librarianship Journal of Education for Librarianship Journal of Education for Library & Information Science Journal of the American Society for Information Science Journal of the American Society for Information Science Journal of Library Administration Law Library Review Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory Libraries & Culture Library & Information Science Research Library Quarterly Library Resources & Technical Services Library Trends Online Review Public Library Quarterly RQ School Library Media Quarterly Serials Librarian Special Libraries Special Libraries

4.8% 10.8% 3.0% 3.55% 6.65% 7.8% 4.5% 10.0% 16.8% 11.6% 18.7% 3.9% 4.6% 15.3% 27.9% 18.9% 9.1%

2.7% 4.3% 4.0% 13.9% 4.2% 1.7% 12.0%

3.4% 8.4%

1969-1978 1980-1990 198%1989 1939-1979

Authors of Study

1987-1989 1987-1989 1960-1984 1987-1989 198%1989 1970-1979 1987-1989 1969-1978 1977-1995 1987-1989 1987-1989 198%1989 198% 1989 1987-1989

Zamora & Adamson Carter & Kascus Buttlar1 Cline Metz Buttlar Buttlar Schrader Buttlar Buttlar Zamora & Adamson Buttlat Zamora & Adamson Nisonger Buttlar Buttlar Buttlar Buttlar Buttlar

1977-I 979

Zamora & Adamson

1987-1989 198%1989 1987-1989 1987-1989 1987-1989

Buttlar Buttlar Buttlar Buttlar Buttlar

1970-1979

Zamora & Adamson

1980-1988

IAII percentagesfrom Buttlararc calculatedfrom her raw data.

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

This research project's findings may be summarized as follows: 1. O f the 568 individuals who authored or coauthored articles in I_APT, 80.6% contributed only a single article, while 3.9% contributed four or more articles. This pattern is typical of LIS research in general. 2. The proportion o f collaboratively written articles i n / . A P T (15.6%) is somewhat low in comparison to other studies of LIS authorship at the disciplinary or subject level, but ranks in the middle when compared to specific LIS journals. 3. Throughout the journal's entire history a relatively slight majority (53.9%) of LAPT authors have been male, but longitudinal analysis shows an increase in female authorship - - a pattern that has been observed in many other LIS journals. In fact, for volumes 11 through 19 50.5% of/_APT authors were female. 4. The majority of L A P T authors have been academic librarians (65.4%), while the next largest occupational categories ate vendors (10.6%) and library and information science education

Authorship in L/brary Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

415

faculty/students (8.5%). Moreover, L A P T has a larger proportion of academic librarians among its authors than found in most other LIS journals. . Twenty-three different countries were represented among/_APT authors. The vast majority of authors were from the U.S. (84.7%), followed by Australia (4.4%), the United Kingdom (3.4%), and Canada (2.0%). However, I_APT displays a larger percentage of international authorship - - 15.3% - - than most other North American LIS journals. While less significant, analysis by region of the United States reveals that LAPT conforms to the basic pattern displayed by other U.S. LIS journals with the largest share of authors coming from the Northeast (27.0%) followed by the Midwest (26.1%). As stated previously, it is beyond this article's scope to fully explain the/.APT authorship patterns revealed here. A rigorous explanation would require systematic research into why various categories of people do or do not publish, why they select a particular journal, and examination of manuscript submission data. Yet a few brief speculations are warranted. The author productivity pattern conforms to the general distribution found in authorship studies. It is normal for a large majority of authors to contribute a single article - - a general pattern observed by Lotka in 1926 and confLrmed by subsequent studies, even though LAPT's distribution does not technically adhere to Lotka's Law. Interpretation of LAPT's collaborative authorship rate in the context of other LIS authorship studies is somewhat difficult. It is puzzling why macro-level studies often report higher collaboration rates than found in most of the specific journal microstudies listed in Table 3. It is also unclear why LAPT does not display a longitudinal trend toward increased collaborative authorship as has been found elsewhere. Further research on these questions would be desirable. That the typical 1.APT author is an academic librarian is hardly surprising. The majority of LIS journal studies have shown academic librarians to be the most productive occupational category. Moreover, there is evidence that on a national scale authorship by academic librarians has been increasing, possibly because of promotion and tenure pressure. The answer to the fundamental question - - why the proportion of academic librarian authors is greater in I.APT than in other LIS journals - - may lay in LAPT's specialized subject focus. Acqnisitions/collection development specialists are more likely to be employed in academic libraries than other types of institutions or occupations. Likewise, the fact that vendors are the second most frequent occupational category among LAPT authors is not unexpected as the journal makes an explicit effort to promote dialogue between vendors and practitioners. Indeed, LAPT's official "Aims and Scope" statement twice mentions "booksellers." One wonders whether the switch from a male to a female I_APT Editor-in-Chief during volumes 14-15 somehow contributed to the trend towards a greater proportion of females among/_.APT authors. However, such a conclusion seems unwarranted. As previously discussed, many LIS journals are displaying a trend towards increased female authorship. Furthermore, research by Zamora and Adamson found no correlation between the gender of a journal's editor and the gender makeup of its authors [122]. The high proportion of international authors in/.APT undoubtedly reflects the fact that the journal makes a concerted effort to maintain an international visibility. The Information for Contributors section states that "The editors will be pleased to receive contributions from all parts of the world." LAPT had an editor for the British Commonwealth and Europe from volume 3 though volume 6, while there has been an assistant editor from Australia since volume 8. Ten international members from Australia, Canada, Germany, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Kingdom have served on the I_APT Editorial Board throughout its history (although analysis of I_APT Editorial Board membership is not this article's purpose). Moreover, on several occasions

416

T.E. NISONGER

LAPT has featured groups of articles with an explicit international theme, such as an Australian section on supplier performance and evaluation or a section of "papers from China." The significance of international authorship is an intriguing question without a definitive answer. Some have implied that international authorship may be associated with journal quality. For example, in his Dictionary ofBibliometrics, Diodato uses the term "attraction power of a journal" in reference to "the portion of articles that the journal publishes by authors outside the cormtry, language, or organization usually associated with the journal" [123]. Indeed, such prestigious LIS journals as the Journal of the American Society for Information Science display a relatively high international authorship rate. Further research is required concerning the genuine significance of international authorship. Finally, the predominance of the Northeast and Midwest in the regional breakdown for U.S. authors is easily understood due to such demographic factors as the number of practicing librarians, large libraries and LIS education programs in those regions, as supported by data from Buttlar [124] as well as Adamson and Zamora [125]. Acknowledgments - - The author gratefully thanks the following individuals for assistance with gender identification of names: Javed Mostafa, Assistant Professor, Indiana University, School of Library and Information Science, for names from South Asia; Jamal Alaqeeli, Ph.D. student, Indiana University, SLIS, for Arabic names; Awe Cbeunwattana, Ph.D. student, Indiana University, SLIS, for Thai names; and Yong-rang Cheng, Ph.D. student, Indiana University, SLIS, for Chinese names. Judith Serebnick, Associate Professor Emerita, Indiana University, SLIS, read a draft of the manuscript and provided valuable feedback.

REFERENCES 1. Olsgaard, John N., and Oisgaard, Jane Kinch. "Authorship in Five Library Periodicals," College & Research Libraries, 41 (January 1980), 49-53. 2. Steer, Carol. "CLJ Authors are Studied," Canadian Library Journal, 39 (June 1982), 151-155. 3. 'late, Elizabeth L. "For Our 25th Anniversary .... "Library Resources & Technical Services, 25 (January/March 1981), 3-7. 4. Zamora, Gloria J., and Adamson, Martha C. "Authorship Characteristics in Special Libraries: A Comparative Study," Special Libraries, 73 (April 1982), 100-107. 5. Adamson, Martha C., and Zarnora, Gloria J. "Publishing in Library Science Journals: A Test of the Olsgaard Profile," College & Research Libraries, 42 (May 1981), 235-241. 6. Adamson, Martha C., and Zamora, Gloria J. "Authorship Characteristics in Law Library Journal: A Comparative Study," Law Library Journal, 74 (Summer 1981), 527-533. 7. Williamson, Edgar. "Authorship Characteristics in Five Selected Regional Library Journals," Southeastern Librarian, 39 (Summer 1989), 47-52. 8. Newren, Edward E "Authorship of Articles Appearing in the Ohio Media Spectrum," Ohio Media Spectrum, 43 (Spring 1991), 30-34. 9. Herubel, Jean-Pierre V. M. "Authorship, Gender, and Institutional Affiliation in Library History: The Case of Libraries & Culture," Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 11, no. 1 (1991), 49-54. 10. Raptis, Paschalis. "Authorship Characteristics in Five International Library Science Journals," Libri, 42 (January-March 1992), 35-52. 11. Stepbenson, Mary Sue. 'if'be American Archivist, 1971 to 1990: A Demographic Analysis of the Articles," American Archivist, 55 (Fall 1992), 208-232. 12. Cfine, Gloria S. "College & Research Libraries: Its First Forty Years," College & Research Libraries, 43 (May 1982), 208-232. 13. Metz, Paul. "A Statistical Profile of College & Research Libraries," College & Research Libraries, 50 (January 1989), 42-47. 14. Kim, Soon D., and Kim, Mary T. "Academic Library Research: A Twenty Year Perspective," New Horizons for Academic Libraries: Papers Presented at the First National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries; Boston, Massachusetts, November 8-11, 1978, edited by Robert D. Stueart and Richard D. Johnson, 375-383. New York: K. G. Saur, 1979.

Authorship in L/brory Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

417

15. Terry, James L. "Authorship in College & Research Libraries Revisited: Gender, Institutional Affiliation, Collaboration," College & Research Libraries, 57 (July 1996), 377-383. 16. Stephenson, Mary Sue. "The Canadian Library Journal, 1981-91: An Analysis," Canad/an Journal of Information and Library Science, 18 (July 1993), 1-18. 17. Smiraglia, Richard P., and Leazer, Gregory H. "Reflecting the Maturation of a Profession: Thirty-Five Yeats of Library Resources & Technical Services," Library Resources & Technical Services, 38 (January 1994), 27-46. 18. Carter, Ruth C., and Kascus, Marie A. "Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 1980-1990: Content, Change, and Trends," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 12, nos. 3/4 (1991), 69-79. 19. Karrenbrock, Marilyn H. "A History and Analysis of Top of the News, 1942-1987," Journal of Youth Services in Libraries, 1 (Fall 1987), 29-43. 20. Schrader, Alvin M., and Beswick, Laura, "The First Five Years of PLQ, 1979-1984: A Bibliometric Analysis," Public Library Quarterly, 9, no. 2 (1989), 3--23. 21. Schrader, Alvin M. "A Bibliometric Study of the JEL, 1960-1984," Journal of Education for Library and Information, 25 (Spring 1985), 279-300. 22. Wallace, Danny P. "ALISE and the Quest for Leadership," in A Service Profession, a Service Commitment: A Festschrifi in Honor of Charles D. Patterson, edited by Connie Van Fleet and Danny P. Wallace, 71-103. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1992. 23. Herubel, Jean-Pierre V.M. "Internationality in Journals as Demonstrated in the International Library Review and Libri," Collection Management, 13, no. 3 (1990), 1-10. 24. Krausse, Sylvia C., and Sieburth, Janice F. "Patterns of Authorship in Library Journals by Academic Librarians," Serials Librarian, 9 (Spring 1985), 127-138. 25. Buttlar, Lois. "Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship," College & Research Libraries, 52 (January 1991), 38-53. 26. Buttlar, Lois J. "Profiling Review Writers in the Library Periodical Literature," RQ, 30 (Winter 1990), 221-229. 27. Watson, Panla D. "Production of Scholarly Articles by Academic Librarians and Library School Faculty," College & Research Libraries, 46 (July 1985), 334-342. 28. Chapman, Karen, and Pike, Lee E. "Public Librarians as Authors in the Library Science Periodical Literature: An Examination and Profile," Public Library Quarterly, 13, no. 3 (1993), 47-61. 29. Swigger, Keith. "Institutional Affiliations of Authors of Research Articles," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 26 (Fall 1995), 105-109. 30. Mularski, Carol A. "Institutional Affiliations of Authors of Research Articles in Library and Information Science: Update," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 31 (Winter 1991), 179-186. 31. Dimitroff, Alexandra. "Research for Special Libraries: A Quantitative Analysis of the Literature," Special Libraries, 86 (Fall 1995), 256-264. 32. Tsay, Ming-yueh. "A Bibliomctric Study of Indexing and Abstracting, 1876-1976," The Indexer, 16 (October 1989), 234-238. 33. Hart, Richard, Carstens, Timothy, La Cmix, Michael, and May, K. Randall. "Funded and Non-Funded Research: Characteristics of Authorship and Patterns of Collaboration in the 1986 Library and Information Science Literature," Library & Information Science Research, 12 (January-March 1990), 71-86. 34. Tare, "For Our 25th Anniversary .... "p. 6. 35. Hernon, Peter, Smith, Allen, and Croxen, Mary Bailey. "Publication in College & Research Libraries: Accepted, Rejected, and Published Papers, 1980-1991," College & Research Libraries, 54 (July 1993), 303-321. 36. Varlejs, Jana, and Dalrymple, Prudence. "Publication Output of Library and Information Science Faculty," Journal of Education for Library and lnformation Science, 27 (Fall 1986), 71-89. 37. Budd, John M., and Seavey, Charles A. "Productivity of U.S. Library and Information Science Faculty: The Hayes Study Revisited," Library Quarterly, 66 (January 1996), 11-12. 38. Budd, John M., and Seavey, Charles A. "Characteristics of Journal Authorship by Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries, 51 (September 1990), 463-470. 39. White, Howard D. "Profiles of Authors and Journals in Information Science: Some Trials of Orbit's Get Command," Proceedings of the National Online Meeting, I I ( i 990), 453-459. 40. White, Howard D., and McCain, Katherine W. "Bibliometrics," Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 24 (1989), 119-186. 41. Cline, College & Research Libraries, p. 214. 42. Carter and Kascus, Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, p. 78. 43. Schrader, "A Bibliometric Study," p. 292. 44. Tsay, "A Bibliometric Study," p. 237. 45. Watson, puula De Simone. "Publication Activity among Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries, 38 (September 1977), 375-384.

418

T.E. NISONGER

46. Burlingame, Dwight F., and Repp, Joan. "Factors Associated with Academic Librarians' Publishing in the 70s: Prologue for the 80s," Optionsfor the 80s: Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, edited by Michael D. Kathman and V'wgil E Massman, 395--404. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1982. 47. Mularski, Carol A., and Bradigan, Pamela S. "Academic Health Sciences Librarians' Publication Patterns," Bulletin of the Medical LibraryAssociation, 79 (April 1991), 168-177. 48. Budd and Seavey, "Characteristics of Journal Authorship," p. 470. 49. Hart, Carstens, La Croix, and May, "Funded and Non-Funded Research," p. 85. 50. Lotka, Alfred J. "The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity," Journal of the WashingtonAcademy of Science, 16 (June 19, 1926), 317-323. 51. Pritchard, Alan. "Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics?" Journal of Documentation, 25 (December 1969), 348-349. 52. Watson, Production of Scholarly Articles," p. 334, who cites Cole, Richard R., and Bowers, Thomas A. "Research Article Productivity of U.S. Journalism Faculties," Journalism Quarterly, 50 (1973), 246. 53. Hart, Carstens, La Croix, and May, "Funded and Non-Funded Research," p. 74. They cite Fox, Mary E, and Faver, Catherine A., "Independence and Cooperation in Research," Journal of Higher Education, 55 (1984), 347-359. 54. Schrader, "A Bibliometric Study," p. 291. 55. Olsgaard and Olsgaard, "Authorship in Five Library Periodicals," p. 49. 56. From the SSCIJournal Citation Reports, 1992, 1993, and 1994. 57. Nisonger, Thomas E. "Impact Factor-Based Rankings of Library and Information Science Journals in the Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports, 1980-1992," Fifth International Conference of the International Societyfor Scientometrics and lnformetrics: Proceedings- 1995, June 7-10, 1995, edited by Michael E.D. Koenig and Abraham Bookstein, 393-402. Medford, N J: Learned Information, 1995. 58. Hanks, Patrick, and Hodges, Flavia. A Dictionary of First Names. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1990. 59. LAPT authors normally review galley proofs approximately two months before publication, thus reducing the probability of error due to changed employment status. 60. Note from Carol Pitts Diedrichs, I.APT Editor-in-Chief. 61. Hart, Carstens, LaCroix, and May, "Funded and Non-Funded Research," p. 75. 62. Dimitroff, "Research for Special Libraries," p. 257. 63. Buttlar, "Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature," p. 41. Percentage calculated from Buttlar's raw data for authored items. 64. Budd and Seavey, "Productivity of U.S. Library and Information Science Faculty," p. 5. 65. Frost, Carolyn O. "The Literature of Online Public Access Catalogs, 1980-85: An Analysis of Citation Patterns," Library Resources & TechnicalServices, 33 (October 1989), 355. 66. Mittermeyer, Diane, and Houser, Lloyd J. "The Knowledge Base for the Administration of Libraries," Library Research, 1 (Fall 1979), 271. Also, 16.0% had corporate authorship. 67. Frohmann, Bernd. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature of Cataloguing and Classification," L/brary Research, 4 (Winter 1982), 367. In addition, 5.5% of the articles were by corporate authors. 68. Bottle, R. T., and Efthimiadis, E.N. "Library and Information Science Literature: Authorship and Growth Patterns," Journal oflnformation Science, 9, no. 3 (1984), 108. 5.2% were anonymous, and 5.4% had corporate authorship. 69. Korytnyk, Christine A. "Comparison of the Publishing Patterns Between Men and Women Ph.D.s in Librarianship," Library Quarterly, 58 (January 1988), 62. The percentage is calculated from her raw data. 70. Williamson, Edgar, and Williamson, Josephine B. "Multiple Authorship in the Southeast," Southeastern Librarian, 39 (Spring 1989), 14. 71. Raptis, "Authorship Characteristics in Five," p. 39. 72. Chang, Yeon-Kyoung. "Characteristics of References in International Classification Systems Literature," Library Quarterly, 65 (April 1995), 212. In addition, 6.7% were corporate authors. 73. Ciine, "College & Research Libraries," p. 215. 74. Metz, "A Statistical Profile," p. 45. 75. Terry, "Authorship in College & Research Libraries Revisited," p. 381. These percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of "articles having no coauthors," as reported by Cline, Metz, and Terry from 100%. 76. Schrader, "A Bibliometric Study," p. 291. 77. Williamson and Williamson, "Multiple Authorship," p. 14. 78. Stephenson, "The American Archivist," p. 550. 79. Cline, College & Research Libraries, p. 213. 80. Schrader, "A Bibliometric Study," p. 292. 81. Tsay, "A Bibliomettic Study," p. 236.

Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

419

82. Schorr, Alan Edward. "Lotka's Law and Map Librarianship," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (May-June 1975), 189-190. 83. Voos, Henry. "Lotka and Information Science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 25 (July-August 1974), 270-272. The percentage, calculated from Voos's raw data, may be inaccurately high due to a flaw in Voos's method. See Pan, Miranda Lee. "An Empirical Examination of Lotka's Law," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37 (January 1986), 27-28. 84. Krausse and Sieburth, "Patterns of Authorship," p. 138. 85. Chapman and Pike, "Public Librarians as Authors," p. 57. 86. Lotka, "The Frequency Distribution," p. 323. 87. Pan, Miranda Lee. "Lotka's Test," Collection Management, 4 (Spring/Summer 1982), I 1!-124. 88. Cline, "College & Research Libraries," p. 213, 230. 89. Coile, Russell C. "Lotka's Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28 (November 1977), 366-370. 90. Pan, "Lotka's Test," p. 111. 91. Watson, "Production of Scholarly Articles," p. 336. 92. Krausse and Sieburth, "Patterns of Authorship," p. 129. 93. Dimitroff, "Research for Special Libraries," p. 258. The percentage is calculated from Dimitroff's data. 94. Swigger, "Production of Scholarly Articles," p. 107. 95. Mularski, "Institutional Affiliations of Authors," p. 182. 96. Zamora and Adamson, "Authorship Characteristics," p. 102, 106. They defined academic librarians working in a specific subject collection as special librarians. 97. Raptis, "Authorship Characteristics in Five," p. 41. 98. Buttlar, "Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature," p. 41. 99. Chapman and Pike, "Public Librarians as Authors," p. 53. Percentage calculated from their raw data. 100. Williamson, "Authorship Characteristics," p. 51. 101. Buttlar, "Profiling Review Writers," p. 224. To facilitate comparison with other studies, the percentages have been recalculated from her raw data after removing the "undetermined" category. 102. The percentages do not add to 100 because Karrenbrock reported gender could not be determined for 1.8% of the authors. Most other studies, including this one, excluded undetermined cases before calculating the male/female percentages. 103. Zamora and Adamson, "Authorship Characteristics," p. 104. 104. Steer, "CLJ Authors Are Studied," p. 152. 105. Stephenson, "The American Archivist," p. 551. 106. Zamora and Adamson, "Authorship Characteristics," p. 102. 107. Olsgaard and Olsgaard, "Authorship in Five Library Periodicals," p. 50. 108. Zamora and Adamson, "Authorship Characteristics," p. 104. 109. Buttlar, "Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature," p. 44. 110. Zamora and Adamson, "Authorship Characteristics," p. 105. 111. Buttlar, "Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature," p. 38. 112. Chapman and Pike, "Public Librarians as Authors," p. 54. Combined percentage calculated from their raw data. They reported a non-U.S, author rate of 17% for eight national journals and 7% for two public library oriented periodicals. 113. Williamson, "Authorship Characteristics," p. 48. 114. Olsgaard and Olsgaard, "Authorship in Five Library Periodicals," p. 52. 115. Tate, "For Our 25th Anniversary . . . . "p. 5. 116. Stephenson, The American Archivist, p. 554. Because a bar chart was used the precise percentage can not be ascertained. 117. Dimitroff, "Research for Special Libraries," p. 258. 118. Bottle and Efthimiadis, "Library and Information Science Literature," p. 114. 119. Raptis, "Authorship Characteristics in Five," p. 43. 120. Raptis, "Authorship Characteristics in Five," p. 44. 121. Schrader, "A Bibliometric Study," p. 292. 122. Zamora and Adamson, "Authorship Characteristics," p. 104. 123. Diodato, Virgil. Dictionary of Bibliometrics. New York: Haworth Press, 1994, pp. 4. 124. Buttlar, "Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature," p. 44-45. 125. Adamson and Zamora, "Publishing in Library Science Journals," p. 238-239.