n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Abstract

nScientific collaboration networks were contemporary academic research. This study represents the scientific structure and evolution pattern of the articles and authors’ collaboration in ‘Journal of Virology’ between 1989 and 2020, data were downloaded from Web of Science core collection database. A total of 38133 records were extracted to calculate collaboration and authorship pattern, co-authorship network and authorship ranking and indices. Some software such as Bibexcel, VOS viewer and Pajek were mainly used for drawing the maps and analysing the data. In the authorship pattern, the highest no. of scientific publications were devoted to the articles written by four authors (14.99%). The dominance of multi-authored papers over single-authored papers with more than 98% of all papers. The collaborative coefficient (CC) is 0.76, and the degree of collaboration (DC) is 0.998 during the mentioned years, which represents the number of single-authored articles is very low. The paper presents the method and potential applications of co-authorship network, and the main authors appraise the dynamics of the virology authorship network from published papers in the Journal of virology via bibliometric analysis.n

n

n

n

Full Text

n

n

[foreach 379]n

n[/foreach]

u276e u276f

n

References

n[if 1104 equals=””]

1. Antonelli G and Pistello M. Virology: A scientific discipline facing new challenges. Clinical Micro and Infect. 2019; 25(2): 133-135p.
2. Walter D. Infection control [Internet]. 8 March 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 8] Available from: https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/virologists-are-today-s-universal- necessities.html#:~:text=’Firstly%2C%20the%20increasing%20importance%20of,did%20not%20 see%20them%20before
3. Official website Journal of Virology [online]. 2 Mar 2020 [2020 March 2] Available from https://jvi.asm.org/content/about-jvi
4. Benckendorff P. Themes and trends in Australian and New Zealand tourism research: A social network analysis of citations in two leading journals (1994-2007). J Hosptl Tour Mgt. 2009; 16: 1-15p.
5. Benckendorff P and Zehrer A. A network analysis of tourism research, Tourism.2013; 43: 121- 149p.
6. Hall C M. Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Manage. 2011; 32: 16-27p.
7. Sudhier K G. Publication Trend of Biochemistry Research in India: A Scientometric Study, DESIDOC. 2020; 40 (1): 388-396p.
8. Bandyopadhyay A K. Authorship pattern in different disciplines, ALIS. 2001; 48 (4): 139-147p.
9. Abt H A. The future of single-authored papers. Scientometrics. 2007; 73 (3): 353-358p. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1822-9.
10. Price Derek J De Solla, Little Science and Big Science. 1963; [Columbia University press; New York].
11. Zafrunnisha N and Pullareddy V. Authorship pattern and degree of collaboration in psychology. ALIS. 2009; 56 (2): 255-261p.
12. Ponomariov B and Boardman. What Is Co-Authorship? Scientometrics. 2016; 109, 1939–1963p.
13. Sonnenwald D. Scientific collaboration: a synthesis of challenges and strategies. Ann Review Info Sci Tech. 2007; 41: 643-681p.
14. Beaver D. Reflections on Scientific Collaboration: Past, Present, and Future. Scientometrics. 2001; 52: 365–377p.
15. Fox M F and Faver C A. Independence and co-operation in research. Jour of High Edu. 1984; 55 (1): 347-359p.
16. Frame J D and Carpenter M P. International research collaboration Science. 1979; 9: 481-487.
17. McBurney M K and Novak P L. What is bibliometrics and why should you care? Proceed of the Profess Communi Confer. 2002; 108-114p.
18. Cobo M J, López-Herrera A G, Herrera Viedma E and Herrera F. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. JASIST. 2011; 62 (7): 1382-1402p.
19. Patrick O’Neil G. Authorship patterns in theory based versus research based journals. Scientometrics.1998; 41: 291-298p.
20. Farahat Hashem. Authorship patterns in agricultural sciences in Egypt. Scientometrics. 2002; 55 (2): 157-170p.
21. Nattar S. Indian Journal of Physics: A Scientometric Analysis. IJLIS. 2009; 1(4): 55-61p.
22. Ashok S P and Dalve D. Authorship Pattern and Degree of Collaboration in Academic Emergency Medicine. Inter Research: JLIS. 2016; 6 (1): 112–120p.
23. Verma M K, Shukla R & Yadav S K. Authorship pattern and collaboration coefficient of the journal of researchers’ world: Journal of arts, science and commerce (RW-JASC) during 2010- 2017. IJIDT. 2019; 9 (2): 61-65p.
24. Ramakrishna J and Thavamani K. Authorship pattern and collaborative research in the field of Hepatitis C. AJIST. 2015; 5(1): 23-32p.
25. Dutt B, Garg K C and Bali A. Scientometrics of the international journal scientometrics. Scientometrics.2003; 56: 81-93p.
26. Daud Khan. Bibliometric analysis with special reference to authorship patterns and collaborative research in the LIBRI: International journal of libraries and information services. Brazilian Journal of Info Studies: Research Trend. 2016; 10 (1): 9-14p. ISSN 1981-1640.
27. Velmurugan C and Radhakrishnan N. Webology journal: a scientometric profile. IJIDT. 2015; 5(2): 137-142p.
28. ICMJE. Accessed [27 April 2020]. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. [Available online] http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the- role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.
29. Garfield E. Citation indexes in sociological and historical research. JAIST. 1963; 14(4): 275- 331p.
30. Subramanyam K. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Studies of research collaborations. 1983; 6: 33-38p.
31. Ajiferuke I, Burell Q, Tague J. Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics. 1988; 14(5): 421-33.
32. Kumar S, Jain J.M. Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980-2010. Scientometrics. 2013; 97: 491-517.
33. Lawani S. Quality, collaboration and citations in cancer research: a bibliometric study. [Ph.D. dissertation], Florida State University: 1980; 395p.
34. Koseoglu M. A. Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal. Business Research Quarterly. 2016; 19: 153-170p.
35. Shekofteh M. and Rahimi F. Co-authorship patterns and networks in the scientific publications of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Paramedical Sciences. 2017; 8 (1): 7- 16p.
36. Maryam S. & Forough R. Co-authorship patterns and networks in the scientific publications of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical sciences. Journal of Paramedical Sciences. 2016; 8 (1): 7- 16p.
37. Zaida chinchilla-Rodriguez & et.al. Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: a case study. Scientometrics. 2012; 93: 699-717p.
38. Jabbehdari S & Walsh J. P. Authorship Norms and Project Structures in Science. Science Technology & Human Values. 2017; 42(5): 872-900p. doi:10.1177/0162243917697192
39. Reza Yousefi-Nooraie & et.al. Association between co-authorship network and scientific productivity and impact indicators in academic medical research centres: A case study in Iran. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (9): Doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-9.
40. Ramos-Rodriguez A R, Ruiz-Navarro J. Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000. Strateg. Manage. J. 2004; 25 (10): 981-1004p.

n[/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

[foreach 1102]n t
1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/if 1106]

n[/foreach]

n[/if 1104]

n

n

n

Journal of Advancements in Library Sciences

n

[if 344 not_equal=””]ISSN: 2349-4352[/if 344]

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

[if 1193 equals=””][else][/if] 

n [/foreach]n

[if 1181 equals=””][else][/if] 

n [/foreach]n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Abstract

nDue Covid-19 virus around the globe all sectors have been jeopardized and came to halt. Libraries were not exceptions too, where library professionals started learning and sharing professional knowledge through different e-platforms on different Library Science themes, issues and challenges after a covid scenario in the libraries. The study explored the library science professionals on effective use of online webinars and other series during covid times. The study employed quantitative and qualitative designs to obtain the opinions of the respondents using a random sampling method to know the experience about attending online webinars in learning new themes and skills, where the respondents updated their professional subject knowledge, changing trends and applications that can be adapted by attending the webinars. The online questionnaires method was employed for data collection using random sampling method and the questionnaire was sent to dedicated whatsapp groups of (Library and Information Science) LIS professionals Karnataka and (Kuvempu University Library and Information Science) KULIS professionals Alumni groups and further 49 responses were scrutinized for the study. Where the major highlights of the study were 55.1% attended webinars on “COVID-19 and Libraries: issues and challenge, impact, and lock-down”. 4.02% of professionals‘agreed’ to the statement that they “understood the trends in the Profession” by webinars. 87.8%attended webinars to “acquire new knowledge” in professional activities.n

n

n

n

Full Text

n

n

[foreach 379]n

n[/foreach]

u276e u276f

n

References

n[if 1104 equals=””]

1. Kim J, Zhang J, Cha Y, Kolitz S, Funt J, Chong RE, et al. Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). ChemRxiv; 2020.
2. Kulal A, Nayak A. A study on perception of teachers and students toward online classes in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi District. Asian Assoc Open Univ J. 2020; 15 (3): 285–96p.
3. Poddar, Srimoyee. “”Effectiveness of Webinars and Online Workshops during the COVID-19 Pandemic.”” Available at SSRN 3691590 (2020).
4. Partlow, Karen M., and William J. Gibbs. “”Indicators of constructivist principles in Internet-based courses.”” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 14.2 (2003): 68–97.
5. Kebritchi, Mansureh, Angie Lipschuetz, and Lilia Santiague. “”Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review.”” Journal of Educational Technology Systems 46.1 (2017): 4–29.
6. Ngampornchai, Anchalee, and Jonathan Adams. “”Students’ acceptance and readiness for E-learning in Northeastern Thailand.”” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 13.1 (2016): 1–13.
7. Smith, Charles, Malek Hoderi, and William Mcdermott. “”A Preliminary Study of Students Perception and Learning from different delivery methods.”” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 23.2 (2019): 1–8.
8. Allo, Markus Deli Girik. “”Is the online learning good in the midst of COVID-19 Pandemic? The case of EFL learners.”” Jurnal Sinestesia 10.1 (2020): 1–10.
9. Dhawan, Shivangi. “”Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis.”” Journal of educational technology systems 49.1 (2020): 5–22.
10. Priyadarshini, Anita, and Rikisha Bhaumik. “”E-readiness of senior school learners to online learning transition amid COVID-19 lockdown.”” Asian Journal of Distance Education 15.1 (2020): 244–256.

n[/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

[foreach 1102]n t
1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/if 1106]

n[/foreach]

n[/if 1104]

n

n

n

Journal of Advancements in Library Sciences

n

[if 344 not_equal=””]ISSN: 2349-4352[/if 344]

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

[if 1193 equals=””][else][/if] 

n [/foreach]n

[if 1181 equals=””][else][/if] 

n [/foreach]n