Academic Endogamy in Library and Information Science Journals

Abstract

This study examines the editorial endogeny of Library and Information Science journals. The endogeny was determined by the analysis of (1) papers published by the journal’s editors, (2) papers published by the journal’s country of origin, and (3) journal self-citation. The study used five-year coverage based on journals listed in the Web of Science. Regarding the editorial endogeny, the cut-off line of 50% of publications was at 4.51%. However, some journals have concentrated this endogeny from 20% to 45%. The endogenous model developed with the three analyses generated a journal efficiency system that showed a moderate index by the quartile of the journals, with an average of four endogenous papers per journal. 50% of the publications obtained an average of 10.70% self-citations. But part of the 50% most endogenous journals obtained indices ranging from 11% to 75.99%, with ten journals over 30%. 50% of papers are from the journal’s country of origin. We conclude that the levels of endogeny were balanced on average, but some journals abused it to improve their ranking and impact.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.