![[Refereed]](http://www.istl.org/graphics/r2.gif){kind=small}
Better Together: An Examination of Collaborative Publishing between Librarians and STEM and Health Sciences Faculty
Molly Higgins
Reference and Digital Services Librarian
Library of Congress
Washington, DC
mhiggins@crs.loc.gov
Jennifer A. DeVito
Director of Access & User Services
Frank Melville Jr. Memorial Library
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, New York
jennifer.a.devito@stonybrook.edu
Sally Stieglitz
Digital Learning and Instruction Librarian
Swirbul Library
Adelphi University
Garden City, New York
sstieglitz@adelphi.edu
Robert Tolliver
Head, Science and Engineering
Frank Melville Jr. Memorial Library
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, New York
robert.tolliver@stonybrook.edu
Clara Y. Tran
Science Librarian
Frank Melville Jr. Memorial Library
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, New York
yuet.tran@stonybrook.edu
Abstract
Collaborative research is standard practice in many academic disciplines as it has been shown to increase author productivity, article quality, and publication rate. Even so, little is known about publishing patterns among academic librarians and non-library faculty who have collaborated on research. With whom are academic librarians partnering? Are there certain subjects that lend themselves to collaboration opportunities between non-library faculty and librarians? This study attempts to fill that knowledge gap by examining the nature, trends, and subject matter of peer-reviewed articles co-authored by academic librarians and non-library faculty within STEM and the health sciences. We reviewed 13 peer reviewed journals over a decade, and identified 157 co-authored articles. Within this dataset, we found that collaborations are largely affiliated with doctorate (Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Medicine) granting institutions where research activity is high (according to Carnegie classifications), with medical libraries and medical library journals, and in the context of collaborative instruction projects. Additionally, our data showed that ARL-affiliated librarians are more likely to publish multiple collaborative articles. Among all the collaborative articles identified, we found that the majority discussed library instruction or collaborative education projects. Other articles addressed issues related to library services and resources. Notably, we found that collaboration correlated most strongly with institution types and research areas rather than with individual institutions or individual librarians, suggesting that collaboration is a function of certain institutional characteristics and fields of study rather than individual author preferences.
Introduction
Librarians in the United States and Canada are often required to publish research as part of the promotion and tenure process. Some research suggests, however, that they are not given adequate time to meet these research requirements (Sassen and Wahl 2014). Librarians who are hired on 12-month appointments often do not have access to benefits such as sabbaticals and release time (Walters 2016). Librarians also have other responsibilities such as reference consultations, collection development, and instruction, leaving less time to write and publish.
Collaborative research is standard practice in many disciplines, including the sciences. There is research showing that articles resulting from a collaborative effort have a greater chance of publication (Bahr and Zemon 2000; Hernon et al. 1993). Working with colleagues on an article can be beneficial because multiple collaborators share the burden of the entire project. Collaboration can have a positive impact on research output as it encourages commitment and accountability among those involved. Though it is difficult to prove, collaboration may lead to increased productivity. Sharing the workload frees both librarians and faculty members to engage in a larger number of projects (Bahr and Zemon 2000).
The purpose of this study is to review the extent and nature of collaborative research between academic librarians and faculty in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and health sciences fields during the years 2005 through 2014. It examines library and STEM and health sciences faculty publication patterns in 13 library science journals with a STEM or health sciences focus. We identify the subject areas with the most collaborations between library and non-library faculty and the types of research on which library and non-library faculty collaborate. We then discuss what the data signify about cultures of research within disciplines with high rates of collaborative publishing by library faculty.
Literature Review
Over the last 50 years, co-authorship has most commonly occurred in the natural sciences, followed by social sciences and humanities, while co-authorship in academic library literature is a more recent trend (Chang 2015; Norelli and Harper 2013). Fernández (1998) analyzed the increasing trend in science authorship from single author to multiple authors, whereas Hart (2000b) examined specifically why authors collaborated in the academic library literature, including "the top three reasons: improved quality of the article, expertise of the co-author, and the co-author's valuable ideas" (Hart 2000b). In an environment of increasing cross-disciplinary study, collaboration has institutional and financial benefits such as shared resources, distributed labor, alleviation of social isolation, and maintained motivation (Fox and Faver 1982).
The number of co-authored articles has been increasing, particularly in the sciences (Fernandez 1998; Hart 2000b). Within librarian and faculty collaboration specifically, "co-authorship has increased notably in LIS since the 1970s" (Wiberley et al. 2006). The reasons for this increase are similar to those that may explain co-authorship in other areas of study, namely the need for untenured faculty to publish, the ease of collaboration through technology, funding for research projects, and the opportunity for scientists to work on increasingly complex research. Fernandez refers to this trend as "collectivism" and notes how it is appearing in other areas of academics (Fernandez 1998).
Similarly, library faculty are collaborating at a greater rate due, in part, to the pressure on them to publish and to the level of accountability that accompanies collaboration (Hart 2000b). Among the studies conducted on various types of collaborations, Hart (2000a) explores collaborative publication among Pennsylvania State University librarians, finding that more than 80% had co-authored at least one article (Hart 2000a). Bahr and Zemon compare "the collaborative patterns of university and college librarians" and found that "collaboration encourages author productivity" in the sciences and social sciences (Bahr and Zemon 2000).
Collaborative research and writing has been known to result in improved article quality (Slutsky and Aytac 2014). Hart (2007) posits that while co-authorship may not result in better quality manuscripts, the collaboration may help prevent the submission of poor quality papers because quality control and editing by multiple people are built into the writing process. Indeed, research shows that co-authored publications are accepted more frequently (Bahr and Zemon 2000; Norelli and Harper 2013).
Collaborative research and writing can yield numerous advantages for authors, especially for early career researchers. In helping academic librarians meet publishing requirements, collaboration facilitates tenure and promotion as well as career advancement and exposes researchers to new areas of study and better understanding of the disciplines (Bahr and Zemon 2000; Hart 2000b; Norelli and Harper 2013; Slutsky and Aytac 2014). Collaborators not only share their expertise and put together their resources and talents, but also increase their "research and analytical skills" (Norelli and Harper 2013). Furthermore, Fonseca and Viator (2009) found that academic librarian collaboration provides opportunities for presentation, publication, and committee participation at every level, raising the individual's profile inside and outside of their institution.
Co-authorship also provides opportunities for senior librarians to nurture junior librarians (Hart 2000a; Bradley 2008). Accordingly, it is unsurprising that librarians who engage in scholarly activities might seek out co-authorship opportunities to gain skills and guidance for their research.
Collaborative research opens greater possibilities for increased levels of funding. In Hart, Carstens, LaCroix, and May's study of the correlation of funded and non-funded research articles from forty-one library science journals, they conclude that authors who receive funding for research "are more likely to collaborate with other authors" (Hart 1990). In examining the one-year relationship between grant-sponsored nanotechnology research papers and their publication impacts, Wang and Shapira found that most co-funded research papers come from the collaboration of authors across organizations and countries with their own funding support. Nevertheless, the funding support provides opportunities for collaboration, leading to a high correlation between co-authorship and co-funding (Wang and Shapira 2015).
Increasing the visibility of library faculty, and the visibility of the library itself, is another potential benefit of co-authorship specifically with non-library faculty. Libraries are frequently asked to demonstrate their value to constituents, and the same holds true for library faculty. In academic libraries, library faculty and staff are working to highlight the importance of information literacy to teaching and research missions (Fonseca and Viator 2009) and to integrate the library and its faculty in that mission. For many academic librarians, there is a heightened focus on direct engagement with department faculty and embedded librarianship that gets the librarian out of the library and into the departments with users (Shumaker 2012). In the past, librarians may "...have missed the acculturation to academia that is part of the process of earning the advanced degree. They have not participated in research with a major professor, nor identified their own research interest...The emphasis of their education has been on providing services, not on publishing and doing research" (Cubberley 1996). The dichotomy of being a service-oriented librarian with faculty status can result in academic librarians being isolated and unprepared for the rigors of the tenure process (Romanowski 2015). Developing partnerships with non-library faculty and collaborating on research and writing projects are effective ways for library faculty to meet the publishing requirements of tenure while simultaneously integrating themselves and the library resources into other departments (Fonseca and Viator 2009).
Methods
The primary goal of this study is to examine the nature of collaborative peer-reviewed articles between academic librarians and non-library faculty within STEM and the health sciences. Thirteen LIS and education journals were selected through several searches using SCOPUS's Compare Journals tool. Journals were selected if they met three requirements: the journal covers a STEM or health sciences discipline or broad librarian practice; the journal was in print between 2005 and 2014; the articles were in English. Education journals were selected from ACRL's Selective List of Journals on Teaching & Learning (http://acrl.ala.org/IS/instruction-tools-resources-2/pedagogy/a-selected-list-of-journals-on-teaching-learning/) and represent a broad coverage of disciplines. Where available, journal impact factors were used to select education journals within disciplines. The following journals were selected:
- American Biology Teacher
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
- Health Information and Libraries Journal
- Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship
- Journal of Chemical Education
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Journal of Geoscience Education
- Journal of Nursing Education
- Journal of the Medical Library Association
- Medical Reference Services Quarterly
- The Physics Teacher
- Science & Technology Libraries
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine
We examined article information from the publishers' web sites for articles published in these journals for 10 years, between 2005 and 2014 (inclusive). We selected articles that were authored by at least one academic librarian (defined as professional practicing librarians, not LIS faculty) and one STEM or health sciences faculty author. Editorials, book reviews, and resource reviews were excluded. Collaborations with students (graduate, postdoctoral fellows, or other), technology and education support staff, high school teachers, clinical health professionals, National Library of Medicine employees, or professional researchers without faculty appointment were also excluded.
Initially, we collected data for each article collaboration. That data included: details of publications (title, date, issue, volume); the librarian author(s)' name(s) and library affiliation(s); and the faculty author(s)' name(s) and departments. Wherever possible, this data was taken from the article information on the publisher's page. In some cases, author information was confirmed on the institution's web site.
With this data set, we then identified the type of institution(s) that librarians were affiliated with in several ways: by the institution's geographic location (either in the US or Canada, or outside of the US and Canada); by the institution's membership status in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) (http://www.arl.org/membership#.V3U5J_krIdU); and by the institution's category according to the Carnegie Classification of Institutes of Higher Education (http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/standard.php). ARL membership is reserved for libraries. Carnegie classifications, by contrast, classify the entire institution. For this study we used the 2015 Basic Definitions, which divide institutions into categories based on a number of characteristics, including degrees granted, research activity, and the size of the institution. In classifying institutions according to the Carnegie Classifications, medical schools were treated as separate institutions from their main campuses when the Carnegie Classifications classified them this way. For both ARL and Carnegie classifications, we counted different campuses within the same system as different institutions.
Finally, we used the initial data set to determine the number of authors, the discipline subject, and topics of each article. For the discipline subject of the article, we created a list of STEM disciplines, and then subject disciplines were assigned to these broad subject categories according to departments with which faculty were affiliated. Categorizing the articles by topics was a multistep process. Articles were first categorized into descriptive topics based on the primary focus of the article. These topics were then matched to common categories of LIS research found in Slutsky and Aytac (2014). We modified this list of common categories to reflect a more accurate and contemporary list of LIS research areas, based on the range of topics covered by the articles we examined.
Results
Who Are the Librarians Collaborating with Faculty on Research?
In the 13 journals examined, we found 157 articles in which one or more librarians collaborated with one or more non-library faculty members. The vast majority of these articles included one (n=111) or two (n=30) library authors, although one article had 11 librarian authors. Across these 157 articles, a total of 193 librarians are listed as authors. Most of these librarians collaborated on one (n=157) or two (n=32) articles, although three of them are listed as authors on three articles, and one prolific librarian authored six of the articles found by the research team.
We identified 121 unique institutions. Of these institutions, 93 were in the United States and Canada and 28 were located outside of the United States and Canada (only institutions located within the United States and Canada are eligible for ARL membership). Of the 93 institutions located within the United States and Canada, 43, or roughly half, were ARL members, representing approximately 35% of the 124 ARL institutions. By limiting comparisons to institutions located only in this set, we found that the ARL institutions published articles at a higher rate than non-ARL institutions. Within the US and Canada, over half (91:71) of the librarians were affiliated with an ARL institution and those affiliated with an ARL institution were more likely to publish multiple articles (23:11).
We identified the Carnegie Classification for the librarians' institutions associated with each article. Since Carnegie Classifications cover only U.S. institutions, 32 institutions were not represented in this section. Of the remaining institutions (n=89), close to half (n=36) of the institutions were R1 (Doctoral Universities - Highest Research Activity). The next most represented classes were R2 (n=16), M1 (12), and Spec/Med (n=6). Librarians at a number of these institutions were co-authors of multiple papers included in this study. Table 1 shows the breakdown of articles by institution classification.
Table 1. Number of articles for each Carnegie Classification represented in this study.
| Carnegie Classification Abbreviation | Classification | Number of Articles |
|---|---|---|
| R1 | Doctoral Universities - Highest research activity | 74 |
| R2 | Doctoral Universities - Higher research activity | 25 |
| M1 | Master's Colleges and Universities - Larger programs | 15 |
| Spec/Med | Special Focus Four-Year: Medical Schools & Centers | 11 |
| R3 | Doctoral Universities - Moderate research activity | 5 |
| Spec/Health | Special Focus Four-Year: Other Health Professions Schools | 4 |
| Bac: A&S | Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts & Sciences Focus | 4 |
| M2 | Master's Colleges and Universities - Medium programs | 1 |
| Bac: Diverse | Baccalaureate Colleges: Diverse Fields | 1 |
| Assoc: High T-Mixed | Associate's Colleges: High Transfer-Mixed Traditional/Nontraditional | 1 |
| Assoc: Mixed T/C & Tech-High Nontrad | Associate's Colleges: Mixed Transfer/Career & Technical-High Nontraditional | 1 |
| n/a | Not applicable - institutions not included in the Carnegie classification. | 40 |
Interestingly, a small number of institutions in our study produced a high number of articles, often authored by multiple librarian authors affiliated with that institution (Table 2). Five of the top six publishing institutions are R1 institutions (the University of Colorado Denver is an R2 institution). Eleven of the top 15 are Carnegie Doctoral Universities (R1, R2, or R3). Institutions that did not grant doctoral degrees, such as Master's Colleges and Universities and Baccalaureate Colleges, published at significantly lower rates than doctoral-granting institutions. A complete list of the number of articles produced by each Carnegie classified institution can be found in Appendix 2.
Table 2. Number of articles produced by the top fifteen Carnegie classified institution.
| Carnegie Classification | Institution | Number of Articles |
|---|---|---|
| R1 | Vanderbilt University | 10 |
| R1 | University of Tennessee | 5 |
| R2 | University of Colorado Denver | 5 |
| R1 | University of Florida | 4 |
| R1 | University of Illinois at Chicago | 4 |
| R1 | Virginia Commonwealth University | 4 |
| R1 | Duke University | 3 |
| R1 | New York University | 3 |
| R1 | Ohio State University | 3 |
| R2 | Saint Louis University | 3 |
| R2 | University of South Alabama | 3 |
| M1 | James Madison University | 3 |
| Spec/Health | MCPHS University (Massachusetts College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences) | 3 |
| Spec/Med | A.T. Still University | 3 |
| Spec/Med | Louisiana State University - Shreveport | 3 |
What Faculty Are Librarians Collaborating With?
Most articles in the study had two (n=59) or three (n=41) authors. One article had 18 total collaborators, split almost evenly between librarians and STEM and health sciences faculty. STEM and health sciences faculty authors outnumbered librarian authors, 238 to 193. Two reasons account for this. First, most STEM and health sciences faculty members appeared in the sample only once. Most (223 out of 238) STEM and health sciences faculty members in the sample collaborated on only one article. Second, STEM and health sciences faculty authors outnumbered library faculty authors for each article (96 articles included one non-library faculty member; 36 articles included two; 14 articles included three).
Over half of the faculty authors were from the health sciences (medicine, nursing, pharmacological sciences, veterinary sciences, etc.). Faculty in chemistry, engineering, life sciences, unclassified sciences (including biomedical informatics), and others were represented relatively evenly. A few disciplines (physics, psychology, and earth sciences) were represented in small numbers (see Figure 1). This suggests that most faculty collaborated as subject specialists, rather than functional specialists, such as statisticians.
Figure 1. Number of Faculty by Discipline.
What Are They Writing About?
As discussed in the methods section, we examined 13 journals in education and librarianship across multiple STEM and health sciences disciplines. The majority of the articles in the sample came from the health sciences (n=114). Table 3 summarizes the number of articles found per journal.
Table 3. The number of articles found for each journal.
| Journal Title | Number of Articles |
|---|---|
| Journal of the Medical Library Association | 63 |
| Health Information and Libraries Journal | 27 |
| Medical Reference Services Quarterly | 15 |
| Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship | 13 |
| Science & Technology Libraries | 11 |
| Journal of Chemical Education | 8 |
| Journal of Nursing Education | 7 |
| Journal of Engineering Education | 4 |
| American Biology Teacher | 4 |
| Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education | 2 |
| The Physics Teacher | 1 |
| Teaching and Learning in Medicine | 1 |
| Journal of Geoscience Education | 0 |
We found more articles in health science library journals than STEM library journals. Each of the health sciences library journals contained a greater number and a higher percentage of collaborative articles than the STEM library journals. Table 4 shows the number of collaborative articles relative to the total number of articles published in library journals we examined over the ten year period of this study. The Journal of the Medical Library Association had the highest percentage of librarian/STEM and health sciences faculty collaborations at 11.7 percent. The other three major science and health science library journals showed significantly lower percentages.
Table 4. Number of collaborative articles identified and the percentage relative to the total number of articles in the respective journal published from 2005 to 2014.
| Journal | No. of Collaborative Articles | % of Total Articles |
|---|---|---|
| Journal of the Medical Library Association | 63 | 11.7 |
| Science and Technology Libraries | 11 | 4.8 |
| Medical Reference Services Quarterly | 15 | 4.2 |
| Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship | 13 | 3.6 |
Figure 2 shows the number of articles by discipline. Health sciences articles account for over 70 percent of the articles identified. Within the sciences and engineering, life sciences and chemistry had the most articles, accounting for approximately two-thirds of the non-health sciences articles. The "other sciences" represent disciplines with five or fewer articles. They include Earth Sciences, Physics, Mathematics, and GIS. The "other health sciences" represent disciplines with five or fewer articles. They include Physical/Occupational Therapy, Dentistry, and Veterinary Medicine.
Figure 2. Number of Articles by Discipline.
Figure 3 indicates the topics of articles. Many of the articles (n=76) dealt with issues of library instruction or collaborative education projects. This holds true even when excluding the education journals and examining only the articles published in the library journals (Figure 4). The remaining articles largely fall within the scope of other library and information science topics (bibliometrics and citation analysis; information and communication technology; non-library information resources; libraries, librarian roles, library services; and information seeking behavior). Only two articles addressed the subject specialty of the STEM and health sciences faculty without mentioning librarianship. This is not to imply that collaboration is not happening in other STEM and health sciences journals, or in other library journals, but this research project focuses specifically on library and education journals within those disciplines. See Appendix 1 for descriptions of topics.
Figure 3. Number of Articles by Topic.
Figure 4. Number of Articles by Topic in STEM and Health Science Library Journals.
Discussion
Major Trends
The research team found several significant patterns among the data. Collaborations were largely affiliated with doctorate (PhD and MD) granting institutions where research activity is high (according to Carnegie classifications), with medical libraries and medical library journals, and in the context of collaborative instruction projects. High research activity at an institution may provide more opportunities for librarians to collaborate with other established researchers.
Previous research has revealed that academic librarians, particularly those with faculty status, make up a large percentage of librarian authors (Chang 2016). Overcoming some of the barriers to research -- namely "lack of time, financial resources, research skills, job relevance, and expectations and support from organizations" may be easier for librarians who are surrounded by other researching and publishing faculty (Chang 2016).
Institutions
While more collaborations took place in doctorate (PhD and MD) granting institutions where research activity is high, there were institutions representing a wide range of Carnegie classifications, from Associate's colleges to Doctoral universities. This indicates that there may be opportunities for collaboration at any academic institution. However, almost 75% of the collaborative articles were published by librarians affiliated with doctorate granting institutions (47% from R1 universities and 16% from R2 universities) or medical schools and academic medical centers (10% Spec/Med) which may speak to the need for a suitable environment and support for research in order for librarians to pursue publishing collaborations.
Faculty at doctoral universities generally have distinct responsibilities to produce research, creating opportunities for librarians to assist with and collaborate on research projects. This is consistent with our findings that within this group those institutions that had high and very high levels of research activity afforded librarians even more opportunities to collaborate with faculty. This trend supports the general conclusion that where research is happening, there are opportunities for librarians to collaborate with faculty to do research.
Generally, the total number of articles and the per capita number of articles published by ARL member institutions has increased over the time period we examined (Budd 2017). Trends of collaborative research within ARL membership were not as well defined. The data set included 121 institutions. Of these, 93 were located within the United States or Canada, and eligible for ARL membership. 43 of these eligible institutions were ARL member libraries. Notably, although slightly less than half of the institutions were ARL member libraries, just over half of the librarians (56%) were affiliated with ARL member libraries. Thus, within this data set, it was found that the ARL-affiliated librarians were more likely to publish multiple articles. Accordingly, the data suggested, although not strongly, that ARL membership is correlated with greater collaboration between librarians and non-library faculty.
ARL member status does not imply that librarians hold faculty status or go through the tenure process. Seven of the top 15 publishing institutions are ARL member institutions. Of these institutions, five give librarians faculty status and six require that librarians go through a tenure or equivalent process (University of Washington 2017). Overall, within the 15 top publishing institutions, 11 grant librarians faculty status and 10 grant tenure to librarians indicating the importance of librarians' academic status with regards to publishing (Tangient LLC 2017). While tenure, faculty status, and job requirements may also be correlated with the frequency at which librarians publish articles independently or collaboratively, these aspects of librarianship are not the focus of this article and are topics for further research.
Instruction Collaborations
A majority of the articles involved collaborative instruction projects. This trend is not unexpected as eight of the 13 journals considered in this study were education journals, but this trend extends beyond the number of education journals reviewed. Indeed, all of the journals examined in the study, in the health sciences and STEM, contained articles about collaborative instruction projects between librarians and non-library faculty. This trend may be more accurately attributed to the importance of instruction to librarians' professional duties, rather than to the inclusion of education journals in the data set.
Medical Libraries, Librarians, and Library Journals
More collaborations occurred within medical libraries and journals, and by medical librarians than in or by their STEM counterparts. Among the institutions with the most collaborative articles (Vanderbilt University, University of Tennessee, University of Colorado at Denver, University of Florida, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Virginia Commonwealth University) most of the articles were published by medical librarians. Among the top represented journals (Journal of the Medical Library Association, Science and Technology Libraries, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, and Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship), over half of the articles appear in medical library journals. Almost 75% of the journal articles are written about the health sciences. Medical libraries, librarians, and library journals all showed collaboration at higher rates than their STEM counterparts, possibly because medical librarians as a professional group have been accepted by medical faculty and clinicians within research, education, and clinical teams.
Conclusions
In academia, the impetus for research and publication has affected the nature of librarianship, both as part of the academic librarian's own tenure process and in the librarian's liaison role to departmental faculty. A natural outgrowth of these dual professional obligations has been collaborative scholarly publication between library faculty and departmental faculty. This study examined 13 library and education journals in STEM and health sciences disciplines published from 2005 to 2014 and identified 157 articles with at least one librarian and one non-library faculty author.
We identified several trends. First, librarian/faculty collaboration is more likely to occur in institutions with high levels of research activity, namely doctoral granting institutions. This was demonstrated by the high representation of Carnegie R1 Level institutions. A relatively small number of institutions produced a high number of articles. Second, library research collaboration often goes hand in hand with joint instruction projects as was evidenced by the predominance of articles about instruction. Finally, there is a high level of librarian/faculty collaboration in the health science fields, where medical librarians have successfully created unique research and instruction roles for themselves. The majority of the articles dealt with health sciences topics or contexts.
For librarians seeking strategies to increase collaborations with departmental faculty, it is notable that the trends are aligned according to institution types and research areas, rather than individual institutions or individual librarians. This indicates that increasing collaboration between librarians and library faculty is a task best undertaken at the institutional or professional level, rather than by individuals. We suggest three key strategies to increase collaborative publications between librarians and non-library faculty: 1) to focus on places where research is already happening, and to contribute to those efforts; 2) to work within professional organizations to identify potential collaborative niches, and provide training to help librarians fill those niches; and 3) to set expectations for librarians' contributions to be recognized through author credit. With these efforts, librarian-faculty publication collaborations will prove to be better together.
References
Academic Librarian Status. [Internet]. San Francisco (CA): Tangient LLC; 2017 [cited 2017 Jan 19]. Available from: https://academic-librarian-status.wikispaces.com/
Bahr, A.H. & Zemon, M. 2000. Collaborative authorship in journal literature: Perspectives for academic librarians who wish to publish. College & Research Libraries 61(5):410. DOI:10.5860/crl.61.5.410
Bradley, F. 2008. Writing for the profession: The experience of new professionals. Library Management 29(8/9):729-745. DOI:10.1108/01435120810917332
Budd, J.M. 2017. Faculty publications and citations: A longitudinal examination. College & Research Libraries 78(1):80-89. DOI:10.5860/crl.78.1.80
Chang, Y-W. 2015. Librarians' contributions to open access journal publishing in library and information science from the perspective of authorship. Journal of Academic Librarianship 41:660-668. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.006
Chang, Y-W. 2016. Characteristics of articles coauthored by researchers and practitioners in library and information science journals. Journal of Academic Librarianship 42:535-541. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2016.06.021
Cubberley, C.W. 1996. Tenure and Promotion for Academic Librarians. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Fernandez, J.A. 1998. The transition from an individual science to a collective one: The case of astronomy. Scientometrics 42(1):61-74. DOI:10.1007/BF02465012
Fonseca, A.J. & Viator, V.P. 2009. Escaping the island of lost faculty: Collaboration as a means of visibility. Collaborative Librarianship 1(3):81-90. Available from: http://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1286&context=collaborativelibrarianship
Fox, M.F. & Faver, C.A. 1982. The process of collaboration in scholarly research. Scholarly Publishing 13(4):326-339.
Hart, R., Carstens, T., LaCroix, M. & May, K.R. 1990. Funded and non-funded research: Characteristics of authorship and patterns of collaboration in the 1986 library and information science literature. Library and Information Science Research 12(1):71-86.
Hart, R.L. 2000a. Collaborative publication by university librarians: An exploratory study. Journal of Academic Librarianship 26(2):94. DOI:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)00145-7
Hart, R.L. 2000b. Co-authorship in academic library literature: A survey of attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Academic Librarianship 26(5):339. DOI:10.1016/S0099-1333(00)00140-3
Hart, R.L. 2007. Collaboration and article quality in the literature of academic librarianship. Journal of Academic Librarianship 33(2):190-195. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.12.002
Hernon, P., Smith, A. & Croxen, M.B. 1993. Publication in College & Research Libraries: Accepted, rejected, and published papers, 1980-1991. College & Research Libraries 54(4):303-321. DOI:10.5860/crl_54_04_303
Norelli, B. & Harper, T.L. 2013. Collaborative scholarship in academic library literature: Who, what, and when. College & Undergraduate Libraries 20(2):173-196. DOI:10.1080/10691316.2013.789680
Promotion & Tenure Requirements for Peer Institutions. [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington; 2017. [cited 2017 Jan 19]. Available from: http://staffweb.lib.washington.edu/committees/aluw/committees/status/p-t-information/peers
Romanowski, C.A. 2015. First-time faculty librarian, first year experience: Overcoming tenure fears. College & Research Libraries News 76(11):590-591. Available from:http://crln.acrl.org/content/76/11/590.full.pdf+html
Sassen, C. & Wahl, D. 2014. Fostering research and publication in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries 75(4):458-491. DOI:10.5860/crl.75.4.458
Shumaker, D. 2012. Embedded librarians in special libraries. Information Today p. 1. Available from: http://www.infotoday.com/it/jul12/Schumaker--Embedded-Librarians-in-Special-Libraries.shtml
Slutsky, B. & Aytac, S. 2014. Publication patterns of science, technology, and medical librarians: Review of the 2008-2012 published research. Science & Technology Libraries 33(4):369-382. DOI:10.1080/0194262X.2014.952486
Walters, W.H. 2016. Faculty status of librarians at U.S. Research universities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 42(2):161-171. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002
Wang, J. & Shapira, P. 2015. Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PLoS ONE 10(2). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117727
Wiberley, S.E., Hurd, J.M, & Weller, A.C. 2006. Publication patterns of U.S. Academic librarians from 1998 to 2002. College & Research Libraries 67(3): 205-216. DOI:10.5860/crl.67.3.205
Appendices
Appendix 1. Topics by articles
| Topics of Articles | Descriptions of Topics |
|---|---|
| Instruction/Information Literacy | Research focused on instruction and information literacy. Examples include instruction, information literacy, curriculum development, instructional design, and distance learning. |
| Libraries/Library Services | Research related to the trends in and the impact of the changing roles of libraries, library services, and librarians. Examples include embedded librarians, liaison models, the role of the librarian, and librarian training. |
| Non-library Information Resources | Non-library information resources that are not library curated. Examples include wikis, Web 2.0, software, and Web resources. |
| Library Users/Information Seeking | Defining and assessing information seeking behaviors. Examples include database searching, evaluating information seeking skills, and search strategies. |
| Bibliometrics/Citation Analysis | Articles that use bibliometric or citation analysis methods explicitly. Examples include bibliometrics, altmetrics, data mining, and the impact of research. |
| Information and Communication Technologies | Research focused on the impact of technology on libraries or their related institutions. Examples include mobile technology and GIS. |
| Library Resources | Information resources that are library curated (i.e., included in a library database list) or library created. Examples include evaluating databases, discovery tools, evidence based library resources, information indexing and retrieval. |
| Research and Science | Librarians participating in research that does not pertain to library science, but rather to the faculty's subject specialty. Examples include STEM research and patents. |
Appendix 2. Number of articles produced by each Carnegie classified institution.
| Carnegie Classification | Institution | Number of Articles |
|---|---|---|
| R1 | Vanderbilt University | 10 |
| R1 | University of Tennessee | 5 |
| R2 | University of Colorado Denver | 5 |
| R1 | University of Florida | 4 |
| R1 | University of Illinois at Chicago | 4 |
| R1 | Virginia Commonwealth University | 4 |
| R1 | Duke University | 3 |
| R1 | New York University | 3 |
| R1 | Ohio State University | 3 |
| R2 | Saint Louis University | 3 |
| R2 | University of South Alabama | 3 |
| M1 | James Madison University | 3 |
| Spec/Health | MCPHS University (Massachusetts College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences) | 3 |
| Spec/Med | A.T. Still University | 3 |
| Spec/Med | Louisiana State University - Shreveport | 3 |
| R1 | Georgetown University | 2 |
| R1 | Indiana University | 2 |
| R1 | Johns Hopkins University | 2 |
| R1 | Pennsylvania State University | 2 |
| R1 | Stanford University | 2 |
| R1 | Texas A&M University | 2 |
| R1 | University of Arizona | 2 |
| R1 | University of Maryland | 2 |
| R1 | University of Michigan | 2 |
| R1 | University of New Mexico | 2 |
| R2 | Lehigh University | 2 |
| R3 | Idaho State University | 2 |
| R3 | Oakland University | 2 |
| M2 | Weber State University | 2 |
| Spec/Med | University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences | 2 |
| Assoc: High Transfer-Mixed | De Anza College | 1 |
| Assoc: Mixed T/C & Tech-High Nontrad. | Kirkwood Community College | 1 |
| Bac: A&S | Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois | 1 |
| Bac: A&S | Cornell College | 1 |
| Bac: A&S | Penn State Berks | 1 |
| Bac: A&S | Wellesley College | 1 |
| Bac: Diverse | Penn State Erie, The Behrend College | 1 |
| Master's L | Auburn University | 1 |
| Master's L | Emporia State University | 1 |
| Master's L | Grand Valley State University | 1 |
| Master's L | Rider University | 1 |
| Master's L | Saint Ambrose University | 1 |
| Master's L | State University of New York at Buffalo | 1 |
| Master's L | The College of New Jersey | 1 |
| Master's L | University of Indianapolis | 1 |
| Master's L | University of the Incarnate Word | 1 |
| Master's L | Western Carolina University | 1 |
| Master's M | Minnesota State University, Moorhead | 1 |
| R1 | Boston University | 1 |
| R1 | George Washington University | 1 |
| R1 | North Carolina State University at Raleigh | 1 |
| R1 | Northwestern University | 1 |
| R1 | Princeton University | 1 |
| R1 | Purdue University | 1 |
| R1 | Stony Brook University | 1 |
| R1 | University of Arkansas | 1 |
| R1 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | 1 |
| R1 | University of Iowa | 1 |
| R1 | University of Nebraska, Lincoln | 1 |
| R1 | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | 1 |
| R1 | University of Pittsburgh | 1 |
| R1 | University of Southern California | 1 |
| R1 | University of Utah | 1 |
| R1 | University of Washington | 1 |
| R1 | Washington University | 1 |
| R1 | West Virginia University | 1 |
| R2 | Brigham Young University | 1 |
| R2 | Drexel University | 1 |
| R2 | Duquesne University | 1 |
| R2 | Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis | 1 |
| R2 | Kansas State University | 1 |
| R2 | Miami University (Ohio) | 1 |
| R2 | Montana State University | 1 |
| R2 | Rutgers University | 1 |
| R2 | University of Alabama | 1 |
| R2 | University of Vermont | 1 |
| R2 | Wake Forest University | 1 |
| R2 | Wichita State University | 1 |
| R3 | Mercer University | 1 |
| Spec/Health | Barnes Jewish College | 1 |
| Spec/Med | Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine | 1 |
| Spec/Med | University of California-San Francisco | 1 |
| Spec/Med | Weill Medical College of Cornell University | 1 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 