Tracing Thematic Evolution in College & Research Libraries: A Co-LCSH Analysis of Book Reviews (1997–2023)

Kemal Yayla*

This study examines publication patterns and thematic developments in library and information science (LIS) through book reviews published in College & Research Libraries (1997–2023). Employing Co-LCSH (co-occurrence analysis of Library of Congress Subject Headings) network analysis, the findings reveal an unexpected increase in book review frequency, contrasting with declines in other fields. Additionally, a temporal lag between the emergence of new research themes and their broader representation in LIS trends underscores the reflective role of book reviews. This suggests that LIS professionals engage with contemporary research by regularly evaluating book reviews and linking theory and practice. By tracing thematic shifts, the study demonstrates how book reviews capture the intellectual evolution of LIS, as well as their continued relevance in scholarly communication. These findings enrich academic and research librarianship by illuminating the pivotal role of book reviews in bridging practical insights with the broader intellectual discourse.

Introduction

The evolution of scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) is evident not only in research articles but also in the often-overlooked medium of book reviews. While academic journals primarily emphasize research-driven publications, nonresearch content like book reviews plays a vital role in documenting emerging research trends and bridging theoretical advancements with practical applications (Frey, 2003; Kaltenbrunner et al., 2022). However, the growing prioritization of research output has led many journals to reduce or eliminate their book review sections, potentially disregarding the unique contributions of book reviews to intellectual discourse and professional practice (Hartley et al., 2017; Hartley, 2018).

In LIS, practitioners are integral to advancing the discipline and profession through their research contributions. They enhance problem-solving and decision-making in professional contexts, critically evaluate scholarly literature, and provide specialized information services to researchers across various fields (Powell et al., 2002). Collaboration in research activities, participation in professional events, and the dissemination of findings through scholarly outputs are essential for the career progression of LIS practitioners, particularly those in academic roles (Given et al., 2022; Nguyen & Hider, 2018; Ramos-Eclevia et al., 2018). However, barriers to conducting and publishing research persist, highlighting a gap between the research outputs of practitioners and their academic counterparts (Clapton, 2010; Hall, 2010). Book reviews offer a distinctive perspective in this context, serving as a medium through which practitioners can engage with new ideas, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks. Unlike research articles, which often rely on author-assigned keywords, book reviews reflect broader intellectual assessments and professional responses, making them a valuable tool for tracing the thematic evolution of the field. College & Research Libraries (C&RL) exemplifies this, functioning as a unique platform where practitioners and researchers collaborate in advancing LIS scholarship (Terry, 1996; Chang, 2016; Lund & Wang, 2021). Despite being undervalued in academic publishing (Riley & Spreitzer, 1970), book reviews provide critical insights into the development of LIS, particularly when written by practitioners. These reviews not only document trends but also facilitate the integration of practical perspectives into scholarly discussions, offering a bridge between professional practice and academic inquiry. This study examines the thematic evolution of LIS through the innovative application of Co-LCSH (co-occurrence analysis of Library of Congress Subject Headings) analysis of book reviews published in C&RL from 1997 to 2023, providing a structured framework to explore how book reviews capture and reflect intellectual developments in the field.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: First, we present a comprehensive literature review examining the multifaceted roles of book reviews in scholarly communication as well as their significance in LIS. The methodology section details our innovative approach to analyzing book reviews through Co-LCSH networks, explaining how this method enables us to trace thematic developments over time. The results section presents findings in three key areas: descriptive statistics of publication patterns across editorial periods; conceptual changes between periods; and a detailed theme evolution map. The discussion synthesizes these findings to illuminate how book reviews have documented and influenced the intellectual trajectory of LIS, particularly in capturing the transition from traditional library-centric themes to emerging areas, such as digital transformation and social justice. We conclude by considering the implications of our findings for understanding both the evolution of LIS as a field and the continuing significance of book reviews in scholarly communication.

Literature Review

Academic book reviews fulfill various roles, including advertising new publications to readers and libraries, and introducing critical perspectives that contribute to academic discourse. They offer a platform for authors and critics alike to participate in the scholarly evaluation and critique of literary works, thereby influencing the development of their academic fields. Moreover, book reviews contribute to cultural capital by providing insightful analyses and critiques (Obeng-Odoom, 2014). Through these functions, book reviews serve as an essential map of a field’s priorities, highlighting significant works and prevailing values (Nicolaisen & Frandsen, 2007). They can be classified into four main types—academic journal reviews, mainstream media reviews, commercial reviews, and reader reviews—each targeting a distinct audience (Roncevic, 2018). We have focused on academic book reviews that provide longer, more detailed analyses, catering to the intellectual requirements of specialists in particular fields (Lindholm-Romantschuk, 1998; Zinkhan & Clark, 1995).

Despite declining book review sections within academic journals (Hartley, 2018), some journals maintain these sections, acknowledging their importance as platforms for scholars to articulate viewpoints, affirm paradigm commitments, and foster disciplinary knowledge development. Through critical assessments of books in their fields, scholars engage in dialogues that not only delineate but also advance their research domains, thereby enabling the discovery of novel insights (Hyland, 2009). Structured predominantly around the reviewer’s perspective and critical appraisal of another’s work, book reviews represent a uniquely personal form of academic publication (Di Leo, 2009; East, 2011), facilitating direct interaction among community members through exchanging ideas and critiques. Moreover, composing book reviews provides scholars with an expedient means to disseminate their perspectives on emerging topics or contentious issues, circumventing the protracted process of peer review and revision associated with full-length articles (Oinas & Leppälä, 2013). This is particularly invaluable in disciplines characterized by long peer-review periods.

Exploring book reviews across scientific disciplines has not occurred in isolation; it reflects a broader scholarly engagement with evaluating and disseminating knowledge. Jaakkola (2022) comprehensively delineates the expansion of book review practices, underscoring the varied motivations that drive scholars from diverse fields to engage in reviewing activities. We grouped the literature into different perspectives to demonstrate this scholarly development (see Table 1). These categories—from ethics of reviewing and practical advice to rhetorical analyses and historical studies—highlight the diverse nature of book reviews as an academic subject. This shift has not only changed how critics analyze and prioritize the parts of book reviews but has also greatly affected their structure and themes over time.

The breadth of these categories demonstrates that academic book reviews have evolved from being merely evaluative texts to becoming a distinct object of scholarly investigation in their own right. Apart from the viewpoints mentioned in Table 1, LIS researchers have used book reviews beyond academic discourse. For instance, Serebnick’s (1981) study highlights the dependency of medium-sized public libraries on book review journals for curating their adult nonfiction collections, a sentiment echoed by subsequent research. Blake (1989) and Parker (1989) further elaborate on the indispensable role of book reviews in guiding librarians’ collection management decisions. This practice leverages scholarly book reviews as a strategic tool for enhancing library collections.

Although book reviews have been acknowledged as valid scholarly output by different academic communities, they are often neglected in bibliometric analyses. This omission could potentially undermine the perceived contribution of book reviews to scholarly discourse. Nevertheless, book reviews have gained recognition as a valuable data source for assessing the scholarly impact of books (W. Liu et al., 2017; Wei & Fan, 2018). For example, Nicolaisen (2002) introduced a bibliometric methodology to evaluate the academic value of book reviews. This approach uses strategic research materials and empirical sources to clarify the phenomena under investigation. It enables academics, publishers, and editors to assess the quality of book reviews across various academic contexts. Building on this foundation, Gorraiz et al. (2014) further explore the utility of book reviews in developing book citation indexes (BKCI). They posit that book reviews are a practical selection criterion due to their simplicity and transparency. Their findings reveal that books accompanied by reviews tend to garner a higher citation count, underscoring the potential of reviews to shed light on a book’s impact on the research community. Unlike peer reviews, which precede publication, book reviews are conducted post-publication, precluding any immediate influence on the book’s content until subsequent editions. This characteristic enables the identification of relevant books through their reviews, a feature particularly beneficial in disciplines where books play a more central role, such as the social sciences, arts, and humanities.

In similar study, Zuccala et al. (2014) introduce the concept of “megacitation” to transform qualitative scientific book reviews into a weighted bibliometric indicator in a novel application of book reviews. Employing a manual human coding technique, the researchers analyze book reviews within the history discipline, categorizing them based on the reviewers’ assessment of the author’s scientific credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). Subsequently, they develop a classifier that integrates manual coding with machine learning to detect sentiment-based sentences within history book reviews. Their study demonstrates that a combination of weighted extensive citations, traditional book/journal citations, and “lib-citations” (i.e., library holdings) could be comprehensive tools for assessing a book’s scholarly impact.

The earlier literature review highlights book reviews’ various roles in scholarly communication, from facilitating critical discourse to functioning as a bibliometric tool to assess academic impact. Our study aims to offer a new perspective by examining the specific nature of the books reviewed in C&RL. We seek to investigate the connection between the subject headings of reviewed books that form themes and the interests of librarians and researchers, particularly those not directly engaged in academic publishing. To do so, we have employed a data-driven case study approach and created theme maps from the Library of Congress Subject Headings of reviewed books. We hope to illuminate how book reviews, besides their immediate academic or cultural contributions, reflect and may potentially guide the scholarly foci within LIS. This would offer new insights into the dynamics of academic knowledge dissemination and the implications of book reviews in the LIS academic ecosystem.

Data and Methodology

Web scraping as a data collection method offers significant advantages for analyzing scholarly communication patterns and tracking intellectual development within academic disciplines (Luscombe et al., 2022). Prior bibliometric analyses of book reviews have predominantly relied on indices from the Web of Science as their primary data source (Hartley et al., 2016, 2017; W. Liu et al., 2017; Wei & Fan, 2018). While these studies have primarily focused on assessing the impact and citation performance of book reviews, they often overlook the rich contextual information embedded in the full text of reviews and their associated metadata.

Our study introduces a novel methodological approach that integrates automated web scraping techniques with the analysis of LCSH. This methodology is particularly valuable because book reviews, unlike research articles, do not include author-assigned keywords, which are essential for conducting traditional co-word analyses. Instead, LCSH provides standardized and controlled vocabulary, enabling a structured thematic categorization of books and offering an effective proxy for keywords (Ferris, 2018; Cooey & Phillips, 2023). This controlled vocabulary enhances the precision of thematic analysis and information retrieval processes (Shu et al., 2017).

To operationalize this approach, we compiled a dataset from subject headings included in book reviews published in C&RL, which serves as a key platform for scholarly dialogue between practitioners and researchers in the LIS field (Chang, 2015; Terry, 1996). We extracted these subject headings from catalog records available on openlibrary.org, demonstrating the feasibility of leveraging catalog data for bibliometric research. This innovative methodology addresses the challenges posed by the absence of keywords in book reviews and expands the analytical possibilities for studying this unique genre within scholarly communication.

Data Collection

To compile the dataset, we systematically screened book review publications from C&RL between 1997 and 2023, focusing on those that included ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 codes in their titles. Following best practices in web scraping methodology (Dogucu & Çetinkaya-Rundel, 2021), we implemented a “gather-narrow-extract” framework (Anglin, 2019): initially gathering all potentially relevant book reviews, then narrowing down to those containing ISBN information using regular expressions (see Figure 1), and finally extracting specific data points for analysis.

Our data collection process comprised three distinct phases. In the first phase, initial data gathering, we developed a systematic web scraping protocol to collect book reviews from the C&RL website while strictly adhering to ethical guidelines. We designed the scraping algorithm to respect the site’s robots.txt file and incorporated appropriate delays between requests to minimize server load, ensuring comprehensive coverage of book reviews published during the specified timeframe. In the second phase, we employed data verification and cleaning, regular expressions (see Figure 1) to identify and extract ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 codes embedded in the review titles. This automated process facilitated efficient and reliable data extraction while maintaining data integrity. The verification process entailed ensuring data quality through systematic identification of ISBN codes, establishing verifiable links between book reviews and catalog records, and cross-referencing extracted ISBNs with authoritative bibliographic sources to enhance accuracy. In the final phase, catalog data integration, we cross-referenced the extracted ISBNs with catalog records on openlibrary.org to obtain standardized LCSH data.

Table 2 provides a snippet of the resulting data structure, illustrating how each book, identified by its ISBN, is linked to multiple subject headings. This step included automated matching of ISBNs with catalog entries, as well as manual review to resolve discrepancies caused by typographical errors or incorrect characters in the source data. Additionally, cases where catalog matches could not be found were carefully documented to ensure transparency. Through this systematic approach, catalog data for 848 books were successfully retrieved, corresponding to a success rate of 97.6% out of 869 identified reviews. The 21 unmatched books primarily resulted from typographical errors in the original ISBNs, books not being cataloged on https://openlibrary.org/, or the presence of multiple editions with different ISBNs. The resulting dataset provides a comprehensive foundation for analyzing thematic trends in LIS scholarship through book reviews. By employing a transparent, rigorous, and scalable methodology, this study offers significant insights into bibliometric analysis within the field.

Methods

Contemporary bibliometric studies increasingly employ social network analysis (SNA) to explore the intellectual structure of co-word network maps, offering new insights into scholarly communication and thematic developments (Khan & Trier, 2019; Y. Liu et al., 2016). Building on this methodological tradition, our study integrates three complementary SNA approaches: co-word analysis, structural holes analysis within co-word networks, and thematic evolution mapping. This integrated approach facilitates a comprehensive examination of thematic development in book reviews published in C&RL. Below, each method is described in detail.

Co-Word Analysis

This study employs co-word analysis, a sophisticated bibliometric method grounded in co-occurrence analysis, to uncover thematic patterns in book reviews. This approach is particularly effective for exploring the interconnections of concepts, ideas, and issues within a specific scientific domain, while simultaneously investigating its underlying conceptual framework (Callon et al., 1983). Unlike conventional text analysis, which assumes that keywords adequately summarize an article’s content and reveal topic connections, co-word analysis delves deeper, offering richer analytical insights (Callon et al., 1991; Leydesdorff, 1997).

Co-word analysis identifies impactful vocabulary and traces the evolution of knowledge fields by analyzing word co-occurrences and their shifts over time. It adopts both a rhetorical and sociological lens, using keywords as proxies for objective phrases that encapsulate a field’s knowledge structure (He, 1999). By examining the co-occurrence of significant word pairs, this method extracts scientific themes without relying on predefined topics, allowing for impartial monitoring of theme interactions and changes in topical focus (Ding et al., 2001).

The underlying premise of co-word analysis suggests that the frequent appearance of terms signals distinct research topics. For example, when two keywords consistently co-occur within articles, it indicates a meaningful relationship and demonstrates their topical linkages (Callon et al., 1983; Leydesdorff & Hellsten, 2006). Such recurring patterns signify strategic thematic alliances and provide insight into the domain’s conceptual structure (Muñoz-Leiva et al., 2012).

In our implementation, keywords are represented as nodes in network graphs, while the links between nodes signify connections between keywords. The frequency of co-occurrence determines the strength of these connections. Analyzing all nodes and their interconnections allows for the visualization of both the position of individual terms and the clustering of keywords within the network. This approach also facilitates temporal tracking of changes within the conceptual space, enabling the visualization of the field’s intellectual structure as an evolving network (Bai et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2001; He, 1999). For instance, a term like “open access” might bridge distinct clusters, such as digital repositories and information policy, indicating its strategic role in connecting these themes.

Structural Holes

The concept of structural holes, derived from social network theory, emphasizes the informational advantages that emerge when an actor bridges otherwise unconnected groups (Burt, 1992). These structural holes represent opportunities for entities to establish critical connections between otherwise disparate network segments. Such bridging connections are particularly valuable in network analysis as they facilitate communication and the flow of information between isolated components (Burt, 2004, 2021).

To operationalize this concept, we employed NetworkX (Hagberg et al., 2008), a Python-based social network analysis library, to calculate constraint values for keywords using Burt’s constraint measure. The constraint value (C) for a node ranges from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate fewer structural holes and more redundant connections. Conversely, lower constraint values suggest that a keyword serves as a bridge between otherwise disconnected themes in the co-word network. The significance of a keyword’s bridging role is thus directly related to how low its constraint value is, making keywords with minimal constraint values particularly important for understanding the intellectual structure of the field.

Theme Evolution Mapping

To trace thematic development over time, we constructed a thematic evolution map that highlights focal areas from a temporal perspective. This method visualizes changes in thematic focus across four distinct periods, segmented based on the tenure of book review editors: 1997–2008, 2009–2014, 2015–2019, and 2020–2023 (Cobo et al., 2011). This segmentation enables systematic examination of how themes evolve across editorial eras and reflects changes in the intellectual priorities of the field.

For each period, we generated Co-LCSH networks using compiled catalog records. These networks were constructed using the co-word analysis method, where subject headings were treated as nodes, and their co-occurrence in catalog data formed the edges connecting them. The frequency of co-occurrence determined the strength of these connections, enabling the identification of thematic clusters and their relationships within the network. Table 3 presents the network characteristics for each period, including the number of nodes (i.e., unique subject headings) and edges (i.e., co-occurrence relationships). Substantial variations in network size and density across periods illustrate the evolving nature of scholarly discourse. For instance, the decline in edge density from 2009–2014 to 2020–2023 suggests a trend toward greater specialization or fragmentation within the field. The co-word approach provided a detailed framework for exploring these changes, as it allowed for the identification of evolving themes and their interconnectedness over time. For visualization, we utilized Gephi (Bastian et al., 2009), a robust network visualization and community detection tool. We generated layouts using the ForceAtlas2 algorithm (Jacomy et al., 2014), with manual adjustments to optimize visual clarity.

Given the complexity of these networks, static visual representations might not effectively convey the intricate connections and evolving thematic structures. To address this, interactive network visualizations are available via the URLs listed in Table 3. These interactive graphs allow readers to explore each period’s network online, offering a more dynamic and detailed examination of node relationships and structural properties. By navigating these interactive networks, readers can gain deeper insights into the thematic evolution of the field, which would be difficult to achieve through static images alone.

Thematic identification within Co-LCSH networks was achieved through modularity-based clustering, with structural hole values calculated for each node. The node with the smallest structural hole value within each connected subnetwork was designated as the theme’s identifier. Themes that maintained identical structural holes across periods were labeled “thematic nexus” or “conceptual nexus,” signifying persistent scholarly conversations. To construct the thematic evolution map, the identified themes for each period were arranged in chronological order to capture their temporal transitions. Each theme, represented by the node with the smallest structural hole value in its respective subnetwork, was positioned within the evolution map. The relationships among themes across periods were visualized using NetworkX (Hagberg et al., 2008) package, which facilitated the creation of directed graphs connecting themes based on their structural hole properties and thematic continuity. The resulting thematic structure was conceptualized as a bipartite graph, where vertices are partitioned into two distinct sets (e.g., U and V), and connections occur only between elements from different sets. Theme relationships were quantified using the inclusion index: dashed lines indicate similar structural holes, while continuous lines represent perfect matches between themes.

This comprehensive mapping approach provides a systematic framework for understanding the temporal evolution of themes within the LIS field, while the interactive visualizations enable detailed exploration of thematic relationships and structural changes over time. The combination of quantitative network analysis and visual representation offers insights into both the persistence of established themes and the emergence of new scholarly conversations within the field.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The study analyzed 869 book reviews published in C&RL between 1997 and 2023. The violin plot analysis (see Figure 2) reveals distinct distribution patterns across different editorial periods, highlighting the evolution from consistent to more flexible publication practices over time.

During Period 1 (1997–2008), the journal exhibited a remarkably consistent publication pattern, with a narrow distribution centered around 35 book reviews annually (min 5 34, max 5 36), demonstrating minimal variance. This phase represents the most stable period in the journal’s book review publication history. In contrast, the subsequent periods show increasing variability in the distribution of published reviews. Period 2 (2009–2014) features a bimodal distribution, with most of the reviews clustering around 34 per year; an extreme outlier of only three reviews in 2014 suggests an anomaly in that year. Moving into Period 3 (2015–2019), the distribution becomes wider and more uniform, ranging from 24 to 34 reviews annually. This indicates greater variability in publication practices during this period. The most recent period, Period 4 (2020–2023), shows the broadest distribution range, spanning from 28 to 55 reviews. A notable peak of 55 reviews in 2022 marks a significant shift in the book review publication practices during this time. Across the entire study period, the median number of book reviews per year was 34, with a mean of 32.4 reviews.

The violin plot clearly illustrates the evolution of review distribution, transitioning from the highly concentrated pattern seen in Period 1 to the increasingly dispersed patterns in the following periods. Notably, Period 4 displays the most pronounced variation, suggesting a shift from a strictly regulated publication pattern to a more flexible approach in managing book review sections.

Conceptual Change Between Periods

Building upon the publication pattern analysis, we examined the conceptual evolution of the field through co-word analysis, employing both degree and eigenvector centrality metrics to identify influential concepts and their relationships across the four identified periods. The network analysis reveals significant paradigmatic shifts that parallel the evolving reviewed books while highlighting distinct intellectual priorities within LIS.

Emergence of Digital Integration (1997–2008)

During this foundational period, which coincides with the journal’s most stable publication patterns, the LCSH co-occurrence network reached its broadest scope (1,005 nodes, 9,486 edges). This extensive network structure reflects the field’s dual focus on integrating traditional library science concepts with emerging digital paradigms. Centrality analyses identify “libraries” as the most influential term (eigenvector centrality: 1.000; degree centrality: 271), followed by “history” (eigenvector: 0.891; degree: 310), and “computers” (eigenvector: 0.799; degree: 131). These findings illustrate the coexistence of traditional and technological frameworks within the intellectual landscape of the field. Notably, field-specific terms such as “information superhighway” (eigenvector: 0.595; degree: 75) and “computers and civilization” (eigenvector: 0.474; degree: 61) exhibit high eigenvector centrality despite lower degree centrality, underscoring their strategic role in bridging traditional and digital domains. This period reflects the field’s early efforts to navigate the challenges of digital integration while retaining its traditional scholarly foundations.

Technological Integration and Knowledge Framework Transformation (2009–2014)

In contrast to the previous period’s broad scope, the 2009–2014 phase witnessed a contraction of the network structure (504 nodes, 3,296 edges), indicating a more focused and consolidated conceptual framework. While “libraries” maintained its central position (degree: 122; eigenvector: 0.989), the emergence of “digital libraries” (degree: 61; eigenvector: 0.499) marks a pivotal shift toward digital transformation. This transition highlights the deliberate incorporation of technological concepts into the field’s intellectual discourse. Additionally, terms such as “effect of technological innovations” (degree: 66; eigenvector: 0.617) and “information literacy” (degree: 56; eigenvector: 0.514) demonstrate disproportionate centrality values, indicating their role as conceptual bridges linking traditional library science with emergent knowledge domains. These patterns suggest the evolution of LIS toward a socio-technical framework, aligning with broader trends in technological adoption and knowledge organization.

Academic Specialization and Research Focus (2015–2019)

Building upon the technological consolidation of the prior period, the 2015–2019 phase saw an intensification of the network structure (353 nodes, 3,710 edges). “Academic libraries” (degree: 145; eigenvector: 1.000) emerged as the most central node, reflecting a shift toward academic contexts and collaboration. The prominence of “case studies” (degree: 102; eigenvector: 0.776) and “research” (degree: 94; eigenvector: 0.774) underscores the growing importance of research methodologies in the field. Furthermore, the high centrality of “relations with faculty and curriculum” (degree: 86; eigenvector: 0.810) reflects the increasing emphasis on academic integration and interdisciplinary engagement. These findings indicate the field’s progression toward a research-intensive and pedagogically focused intellectual framework, characterized by an enhanced alignment with academic priorities.

Social Justice Orientation and Critical Perspectives (2020–2023)

The most recent period, marked by the greatest variability in review publication patterns, shows the network’s most compact form (309 nodes, 1,643 edges) while revealing a profound conceptual transformation. Traditional library science terms exhibit diminished centrality (e.g., “libraries”: degree: 44; eigenvector: 0.288), whereas socially oriented concepts gain prominence. Key terms such as “history” (degree: 96; eigenvector: 1.000), “social aspects” (degree: 82; eigenvector: 0.887), and “social justice” (degree: 43; eigenvector: 0.717) dominate the network structure. The emergence of terms such as “race relations” (degree: 40; eigenvector: 0.704) and “Black Lives Matter movement” (degree: 24; eigenvector: 0.589) reflects the field’s increasing engagement with equity and justice-oriented scholarship. Meanwhile, the prominence of “feminism” (degree: 32; eigenvector: 0.611) and “archives” (degree: 43; eigenvector: 0.355) underscores the integration of critical theory and societal concerns into LIS research. This period marks a paradigm shift, aligning the field with contemporary societal challenges and advancing a justice-oriented intellectual framework.

This longitudinal analysis demonstrates the systematic evolution of the LIS field as reflected in reviewed book subject headings. The findings highlight a progression from traditional, library-centric frameworks through technological integration and academic specialization to a justice-oriented paradigm. These conceptual shifts not only align with the journal’s evolving publication practices but also mirror broader societal transformations, underscoring the dynamic interplay between intellectual priorities and external influences in shaping the field.

Theme Evolution Map

To complement the analysis of conceptual change, a theme evolution map (see Figure 3) was constructed to illustrate the temporal dynamics of research themes across four distinct periods. This visualization provides insights into the persistence of foundational themes alongside the development of new research trajectories within the field.

The theme evolution map reveals several notable patterns in the intellectual landscape of LIS book reviews. In the first period (1997–2008), which represents the journal’s most stable phase of publication, the largest thematic clusters are centered around “libraries” (182 members), “education” (174 members), and “history” (146 members). This period also features significant technological themes such as “computers” (72 members) and “data processing” (82 members), indicating the field’s initial engagement with digital transformation, a phenomenon further substantiated by our network analysis.

The transition to the second period (2009–2014) marks a shift in thematic emphasis. While “history” (124 members) and “academic libraries” (114 members) emerge as dominant clusters, the appearance of “digital libraries” (54 members) as a distinct theme aligns with our findings on the increasing integration of technology and the reconfiguration of knowledge frameworks. Strong thematic connections between periods—most notably from “education” and “libraries” in the first period to “academic libraries” in the second—illustrate the field’s shifting focus toward academic and institutional contexts.

The third period (2015–2019) demonstrates a notable consolidation of themes around academic and professional practices. The emergence of new technological themes such as “artificial intelligence” and “cognition,” alongside the sustained prominence of “libraries” (90 members) and “academic libraries” (81 members), reflects the field’s growing engagement with advanced technologies. The appearance of “library and information science” (33 members) as a distinct theme signals an increasing emphasis on disciplinary reflection.

The most recent period (2020–2023) presents the most thematically diverse landscape, characterized by a proliferation of specialized and socially oriented themes. While “history” (69 members) and “academic libraries” (51 members) remain significant, genuinely new themes, such as “political science” and “African American women,” emerge. In a related but distinct trend, “social aspects”—a theme present across all four periods—gains renewed prominence, reflecting the field’s intensified engagement with social justice and critical perspectives. This thematic diversification aligns with findings from our network analysis, highlighting the field’s heightened attention to societal challenges.

The map also reveals significant patterns in both thematic connections and disconnections. Early-period themes such as “bookmobiles,” “librarians in motion pictures,” and “cross-cultural studies” appear as isolated nodes, suggesting temporal research interests that did not persist. However, other themes, such as “academic libraries,” “information storage and retrieval systems,” and “appreciation,” demonstrate notable continuity across multiple periods, albeit with varying degrees of prominence.

The theme “academic libraries,” for instance, emerges as a central concept in the second period (2009–2014) and persists as a significant focus in subsequent periods. It is worth noting that this pattern derives not from C&RL’s editorial orientation toward academic librarianship but from the Library of Congress Subject Headings of the books selected for review. The sustained centrality of this theme may, therefore, reflect the consistent choices of practitioner-reviewers across all periods—a pattern that could be interpreted as indicative of enduring professional priorities within the LIS community. Meanwhile, “appreciation,” though less prominent, maintains continuity across periods, which may suggest an ongoing interest in evaluative frameworks and cultural assessment within the field. The reappearance of “information storage and retrieval systems” in the final period (2020–2023) similarly invites consideration of how foundational themes might be reconceptualized in dialogue with technological advancements, particularly the emergence of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Taken together, these patterns are suggestive of a dynamic interplay between enduring foundational concepts and the field’s evolving priorities and may point to a tendency among practitioner-reviewers to engage with broader shifts in the LIS literature when selecting books for review—though further investigation would be needed to substantiate this interpretation.

The emergence of isolated themes in the final period (2020–2023), including “computer vision,” “debt,” and “commerce,” signals potential new research directions and interdisciplinary connections that have yet to be fully integrated into the field’s mainstream discourse. These themes reflect the expanding scope of LIS research, as it increasingly intersects with societal challenges and technological innovations.

Thematic continuity is particularly evident in several core areas. The persistence of themes such as “social aspects,” “libraries,” and “history” across multiple periods establishes these as fundamental intellectual pillars of the field. Additionally, the recurrence of themes like “academic libraries,” “appreciation,” and “information storage and retrieval systems” demonstrates how the field successfully integrates its intellectual foundations with evolving research priorities. However, the evolution of their relative prominence and connections to emerging themes underscores the field’s capacity for both intellectual stability and innovation. Strong thematic connections (depicted by solid lines) between periods remain relatively rare, indicating substantial conceptual evolution rather than mere continuation of established themes.

Building upon these thematic patterns, the map also reveals intriguing cluster size and connectivity trends. Larger but fewer thematic clusters characterize earlier periods, while later periods display smaller clusters, suggesting increasing specialization and diversification of research interests. This trend parallels the evolution observed in the network structure of co-word analysis, which transitions from broader, more inclusive themes to narrower and more specialized topics.

This temporal analysis of thematic evolution reveals the field’s dynamic transformation from a traditionally focused discipline to one that actively engages with technological innovation, academic specialization, and social justice concerns while maintaining its core intellectual foundations.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study reveals several notable patterns in the evolution of book reviews within C&RL from 1997 to 2023, offering insights that both challenge and complement existing understanding of academic publishing trends in LIS. Our findings demonstrate significant divergence from the general decline in book reviews observed across academic journals (Hartley, 2018; Kaltenbrunner et al., 2022), particularly in the social sciences. While many journals have reduced or eliminated their book review sections due to increasing pressure for measurable research outputs and project-based academic work, C&RL has maintained and even expanded its book review presence, especially in recent years.

The temporal analysis of publication patterns reveals a fascinating evolution from highly standardized practices to more flexible approaches. The initial period (1997–2008) exhibited remarkable consistency in review publications, contrasting sharply with the variable patterns observed in later periods, particularly 2020–2023. This transformation suggests an adaptive response to changing scholarly communication needs rather than submission to the broader trend of diminishing book reviews in academic journals. This resilience may be attributed to C&RL’s unique position as a hybrid platform facilitating dialogue between practitioners and researchers in LIS (Lund & Wang, 2021), where book reviews serve as valuable bridges between theoretical advancement and practical application.

Our thematic analysis through Co-LCSH networks reveals significant parallels with documented shifts in LIS research priorities. The evolution from traditional library-centric themes (1997–2008) through technological integration (2009–2014) to social justice orientation (2020–2023) aligns with broader transformations identified in LIS research (Järvelin & Vakkari, 2021; Song et al., 2023). However, our findings suggest a temporal lag between the emergence of new research themes and their representation in book reviews, particularly evident in the digital transformation period. This lag might indicate that book reviews serve as a stabilizing force in the field, allowing for thoughtful reflection on emerging trends before their integration into mainstream discourse.

The observed thematic progression also reflects the hybrid nature of LIS as a field where practitioners and researchers actively contribute to knowledge development. The increasing diversity of themes, particularly in recent periods, suggests that book reviews in C&RL serve as a vital platform for capturing both practical innovations and theoretical developments. This finding supports Han’s (2020) observation of core LIS research topics while highlighting the role of book reviews in bridging the practitioner-researcher divide noted by Vakkari et al. (2022).

Particularly noteworthy is the emergence of social justice and critical perspectives as dominant themes in the most recent period (2020–2023). This shift extends beyond the technological and data-focused trends identified in previous studies (Ma & Lund, 2021; Mokhtarpour & Khasseh, 2021), suggesting that book reviews might be capturing emerging societal concerns before they become prominent in traditional research articles. This observation aligns with Vakkari’s (2024) assessment of LIS’s increasing fragmentation and interdisciplinary nature, while demonstrating how book reviews might serve as early indicators of new directions in the field.

The structural analysis of Co-LCSH networks reveals increasing specialization over time, with networks becoming more compact but thematically diverse. This pattern suggests that while the field has become more specialized, as noted by multiple scholars (Chang, 2018; Vakkari et al., 2022), book reviews have maintained their role in connecting various sub-disciplines within LIS. The identification of persistent thematic nexuses across periods indicates that book reviews contribute to maintaining intellectual continuity while accommodating new developments.

We should acknowledge some limitations of this study. First, while C&RL serves as a significant practitioner-researcher journal in LIS, relying on a single journal’s data limits the generalizability of our findings to the broader field. The patterns and trends identified may reflect editorial policies, reviewer preferences, or institutional factors specific to C&RL rather than representing the entire landscape of LIS book reviews. Second, our methodological approach of using LCSH presents inherent constraints. Unlike author-assigned keywords in research articles that often reflect specific research topics, LCSH terms tend to be broader and more standardized, potentially obscuring nuanced research themes or emerging topics. This standardization, while beneficial for consistency, may limit our ability to detect fine-grained thematic developments comparable to those identified in studies of research articles. Researchers should consider these limitations when interpreting our findings and their implications for understanding the evolution of LIS as a field.

Several implications emerge from these findings. First, contrary to the diminishing role of book reviews in many academic fields, their sustained presence in C&RL suggests that book reviews continue to serve vital functions in LIS, particularly in bridging theory and practice. Second, the temporal lag in thematic representation indicates that book reviews might offer a more measured perspective on emerging trends, potentially serving as a counterbalance to rapid shifts in research focus. Finally, recent observations of increasing thematic diversity suggest that book reviews are evolving to address broader societal concerns, expanding their traditional role as purely academic discourse. These findings contribute to our understanding of scholarly communication in LIS by highlighting the unique role of book reviews in capturing and reflecting the field’s evolution. While the broader academic landscape has increasingly marginalized book reviews (Kaltenbrunner et al., 2022), our analysis suggests they remain vital tools for knowledge dissemination and professional dialogue in LIS, particularly within practitioner-researcher contexts.

Future research might explore how this sustained presence of book reviews influences the development of LIS as a field, particularly in bridging the gap between practice and research. Additionally, investigating whether similar patterns exist in other practitioner-researcher journals could provide valuable insights into the role of book reviews in professional fields more broadly.

References

Abrizah, A., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? An investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(12), 2498–2508. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23145

Anglin, K. L. (2019). Gather-narrow-extract: A framework for studying local policy variation using web-scraping and natural language processing. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), 685–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1654576

Ashley, L. R. (2002). The ethics of academic book reviewing. Journal of Information Ethics, (95), 37–51. https://doi.org/https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ethics-academic-book-reviewing/docview/1682847163/se-2

Bai, Y., Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2021). Visualizing research trends and research theme evolution in E-learning field: 1999–2018. Scientometrics, 126, 1389–1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03760-7

Bal-Gezegin, B. (2015). Book review genre in academic writing: A comparative study of English and Turkish across ten disciplines [PhD Thesis]. Middle East Technical University.

Bal-Gezegin, B., & Bas, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710204

Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 3(1), 361–362.

Bilhartz, T. D. (1984). In 500 words or less: Academic book reviewing in American history. The History Teacher, 17(4), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.2307/492908

Birhan, A. T. (2021). An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: A contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics, 126, 2885–2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03822-w

Black, K. L. (2011). Reviewing the unspeakable: An analysis of book-reviewing practices of African American women’s writings of the 1980s. Black Women, Gender1 Families, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5406/blacwomegendfami.5.1.0001

Blake, V. L. (1989). The role of reviews and reviewing media in the selection process: An examination of the research record. Collection Management, 11(1–2), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1300/J105v11n01_01

Brown, R. (2018). Reasons for publishing scholarly book reviews from a journal editor’s perspective. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.05

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787

Burt, R. S. (2021). Structural holes capstone, cautions, and enthusiasms. In M. L. Small, P. L. Brea, B. A. Pescosolido, & E. B. Smith (Eds.), Personal networks: Classic readings and new directions in egocentric analysis (pp. 384–416). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108878296.029

Byrne, E. F. (2002). Reviewing academic books. Are there ethical issues? Journal of Information Ethics, 11(1), 57–65.

Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280

Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003

Carlo, P. W., & Natowitz, A. (1995). Choice book reviews in American history, geography, and area studies: An analysis for 1988–1993. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 19(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-6408(95)00014-Z

Cesiri, D. (2016). Pedagogical implications of evaluation in academic domains: Praise and criticism in archaeology book reviews. In Pragmatic Issues in Specialized Communicative Contexts (pp. 92–126). Brill.

Champion, D. J., & Morris, M. F. (1973). A content analysis of book reviews in the AJS, ASR, and Social Forces. American Journal of Sociology, 78(5), 1256–1265. https://doi.org/10.1086/225431

Chang, Y.-W. (2015). Librarians’ contribution to open access journal publishing in library and information science from the perspective of authorship. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 660–668. https://doi.org/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. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(5), 535–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.06.021

Chang, Y.-W. (2018). Exploring the interdisciplinary characteristics of library and information science (LIS) from the perspective of interdisciplinary LIS authors. Library & Information Science Research, 40(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.06.004

Chenail, R. J. (2010). How to read and review a book like a qualitative researcher. The Qualitative Report, 15(6), 1635–1642. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1369

Clapton, J. (2010). Library and information science practitioners writing for publication: Motivations, barriers and supports. Library and Information Research, 34(106), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg217

Clark, K. A., & Mai, B. A. (2000). Locating book reviews in agriculture and the life sciences. Science & Technology Libraries, 18(4), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1300/J122v18n04_02

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002

Cooey, N., & Phillips, A. (2023). Library of congress subject headings: A post-coordinated future. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 61(5–6), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2023.2193584

Cortada, J. W. (1998). Five ways to be a terrible book reviewer. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 30(1), 34.

Di Leo, J. R. (2009). The fate of the book review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1353/scp.0.0037

Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 37(6), 817–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00051-0

Dogucu, M., & Çetinkaya-Rundel, M. (2021). Web scraping in the statistics and data science curriculum: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 29(sup1), S112–S122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1787116

East, J. W. (2011). The scholarly book review in the humanities: An academic Cinderella? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/scp.2011.0046

Ellis, S. (2007). “Reviewers reviewed”: John Davis and the early American literary field. Early American Literature, 42(1), 157–188. https://doi.org/10.1353/eal.2007.0008

Ferris, A. M. (2018). Birth of a subject heading. Library Resources & Technical Services, 62(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.62n1.16

Flanders, J. (1979). Katherine Anne Porter’s feminist criticism: Book reviews from the 1920’s. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 4(2), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/3346540

Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution?–Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116(1–2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024208701874

Given, L. M., Partridge, H., & Howard, K. (2022). Supporting collaborative research in information science: The RADAR program as a model for academic-practitioner team engagement. Library & Information Science Research, 44(2), 101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101152

Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Purnell, P. J. (2014). The power of book reviews: A simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics, 98(2), 841–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1176-4

Greene, R. J., & Spornick, C. D. (1995). Favorable and unfavorable book reviews: A quantitative study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21(6), 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/0099-1333(95)90088-8

Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A., & Swart, P. J. (2008). Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In G. Varoquaux, T. Vaught, & J. Millman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (pp. 11–15).

Hall, H. (2010). Promoting the priorities of practitioner research engagement. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000610363978

Han, X. (2020). Evolution of research topics in LIS between 1996 and 2019: An analysis based on latent Dirichlet allocation topic model. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2561–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03721-0

Hartley, J. (2005). Book reviewing in the BJET: A survey of BJET’s referees’ and writers’ views. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 897–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00537.x

Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194–1207. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20399

Hartley, J. (2008). Book reviews. In Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203927984 Hartley, J. (2010). Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. Routledge.

Hartley, J. (2018). Some observations on the current state of book reviewing in the social sciences. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 169–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1115

Hartley, J., Cowan, J., Deeson, C., & Thomas, P. (2016). Book reviews in time. Scientometrics, 3(109), 2123–2128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2114-z

Hartley, J., Ho, Y.-S., & others. (2017). The decline and fall of book reviews in psychology: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 112(1), 665–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2256-7 He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133–159.

Henige, D. (2001). Reviewing reviewing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 33(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.33.1.23

Hérubel, J.-P. V. (2020). The book review landscape in american history: Specialization, segmentation, value, and history journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, 36, 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09739-9

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. A&C Black.

Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (2009). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Springer.

Ingram, H. M., & Mills, P. B. (1989). Reviewing the book reviews. PS: Political Science & Politics, 22(3), 627–636. https://doi.org/10.2307/419632

Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. B. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1366–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023

Jaakkola, M. (2022). Joining the scholarly conversation: The basics of writing an academic book review. NordMedia Network. https://hdl.handle.net/2077/74108

Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PloS One, 9(6), e98679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098679

Jalilifar, A., & Tanavar, L. (2015). In search of the generic identity of the book review: A chronological and pragmatic study. Linguistik Online, 72(3). https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.72.1972

Järvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (2021). LIS research across 50 years: Content analysis of journal articles. Journal of Documentation, 78(7), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2021-0062

Kaltenbrunner, W., Birch, K., van Leeuwen, T., & Amuchastegui, M. (2022). Changing publication practices and the typification of the journal article in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 52(5), 758–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221110623

Kanda, M. (2013). Disciplinary identity in an academic book review. The Bulletin of St. Margaret’s, 45, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.20707/stm-%20lib.45.0_15

Khan, G. F., & Trier, M. (2019). Assessing the long-term fragmentation of information systems research with a longitudinal multi-network analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(4), 370–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1547853

Kozubíková Šandová, J. (2019). Audience involvement in academic book review articles: An English and Czech comparative study. Brno Studies in English, 45(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2019-2-5

Larrègue, J., Mongeon, P., Warren, J.-P., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2019). Reciprocity in book reviewing among American, British and Canadian academics. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, 44(1), 95–114.

Latz, A. O., & Murray, J. L. (2012). A duoethnography on duoethnography: More than a book review. The Qualitative Report, 17(36), 1–8.

Lehmann, S., & Walther, R. (1993). Guest editorial: Our view of reviewing. College & Research Libraries, 54(2), 91–92. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_54_02_91

Lev, B. (2010). Editorial: My experience as a book review editor. Interfaces, 40(6), 477–479. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.1100.0521

Lewis, M. N. (2022). Here’s a good book: Hints on writing a book review for academic journals. RELC Journal, 53(1), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220916239

Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(5), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199705)48:5%3C418::AID-ASI4%3E3.0.CO;2-Y

Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2006). Measuring the meaning of words in contexts: An automated analysis of controversies about “Monarch butterflies,” “Frankenfoods,” and “stem cells.” Scientometrics, 67, 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0096-y

Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: The flow of ideas within and among disciplines. Greenwood Press.

Liu, W., Ding, Y., & Gu, M. (2017). Taking scholarly books into account: Current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics, 110(1), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2172-2

Liu, Y., Li, H., Goncalves, J., Kostakos, V., & Xiao, B. (2016). Fragmentation or cohesion? Visualizing the process and consequences of information system diversity, 1993–2012. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(6), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2016.5

Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2021). An analysis of research methods utilized in five top, practitioner-oriented LIS journals from 1980 to 2019. Journal of Documentation, 77(5), 1196–1208. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2020-0171

Luscombe, A., Dick, K., & Walby, K. (2022). Algorithmic thinking in the public interest: Navigating technical, legal, and ethical hurdles to web scraping in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1023–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01164-0

Ma, J., & Lund, B. (2021). The evolution and shift of research topics and methods in library and information science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(8), 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24474

Mackiewicz, J. (2007). Compliments and criticisms in book reviews about business communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(2), 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651906297168

Mokhtarpour, R., & Khasseh, A. A. (2021). Twenty-six years of LIS research focus and hot spots, 1990–2016: A co-word analysis. Journal of Information Science, 47(6), 794–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520932119

Moreno, A. I., & Suárez, L. (2008). A framework for comparing evaluation resources across academic texts. Text & Talk, 28(6), 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.038

Motta-Roth, D. (1995). Rhetorical features and disciplinary cultures: A genre-based study of academic book reviews in linguistics, chemistry, and economics [PhD Thesis]. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.

Muñoz-Leiva, F., Viedma-del-Jesús, M. I., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & López-Herrera, A. G. (2012). An application of co-word analysis and bibliometric maps for detecting the most highlighting themes in the consumer behaviour research from a longitudinal perspective. Quality & Quantity, 46, 1077–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9565-3

Nguyen, L. C., & Hider, P. (2018). Narrowing the gap between lis research and practice in Australia. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 67(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2018.1430412

Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776808

Nicolaisen, J., & Frandsen, T. F. (2007). The handicap principle: A new perspective for library and information science research. Information Research, 12(4), 12–14.

North, S. M. (1992). On book reviews in rhetoric and composition. Rhetoric Review, 10(2), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199209388977

Obeng-Odoom, F. (2014). Why write book reviews? Australian Universities’ Review, The, 56(1), 78–82.

Oinas, P., & Leppälä, S. (2013). Views on book reviews. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1785–1789. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.856530

Orteza y Miranda, E. (1996). On book reviewing. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de La Pensée Educative, 30(2), 191–202.

Parker, J. M. (1989). Scholarly book reviews in literature journals as collections development sources for librarians. Collection Management, 11(1–2), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1300/J105v11n01_02

Powell, R. R., Baker, L. M., & Mika, J. J. (2002). Library and information science practitioners and research. Library & Information Science Research, 24(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(01)00104-9

Ramos-Eclevia, M., Janio, R. V., Vinzon, M. R., Eclevia Jr, C. L., & Apolinario, R. R. U. (2018). Researching together: Exploring research productivity and collaboration of librarians in ASEAN countries. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 67(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2018.1501868

Riley, L. E., & Spreitzer, E. A. (1970). Book reviewing in the social sciences. The American Sociologist, 5(4), 358–363. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/27701668

Roncevic, M. (2018). Is quality, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? The elusive art of book reviewing and its impact on reading, discovery, and sales. No Shelf Required. http://www.noshelfrequired.com/is-quality-like-beauty-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-the-elusive-art-of-book-reviewing-and-its-influence-on-reading-discovery-and-sales/?utm_source5feedburner&utm_medium5feed&utm_campaign5FeedA1NoShelfRequired1No1Shelf1Required

Rowland, N. J., Knapp, J. A., & Fargo, H. (2019). “Learning scholarship as conversation” by writing book reviews. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 2(3), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/2/3/6

Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. Á. A., & Berbesí, M. P. (2007). Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: A diachronic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1758–1774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.06.003

Schneider, M. A. (2003). The book review in an age of e-politics. Journal of American-East Asian Relations, 12(1–2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1163/187656103793645388

Serebnick, J. (1981). Book reviews and the selection of potentially controversial books in public libraries. The Library Quarterly, 51(4), 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1086/601144

Shu, F., Dinneen, J. D., Asadi, B., & Julien, C.-A. (2017). Mapping science using Library of Congress Subject Headings. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.008

Snizek, W. E., & Fuhrman, E. R. (1979). Some factors affecting the evaluative content of book reviews in sociology. The American Sociologist, 108–114. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/27702372

Song, Y., Wei, K., Yang, S., Shu, F., & Qiu, J. (2023). Analysis on the research progress of library and information science since the new century. Library Hi Tech, 41(4), 1145–1157. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2020-0126

Spink, A., Robins, D., & Schamber, L. (1998). Use of scholarly book reviews: Implications for electronic publishing and scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4%3C364::AID-ASI6%3E3.0.CO;2-3

Stowe, S. (1991). Thinking about reviews. The Journal of American History, 78(2), 591–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2079535

Sturm, S. (2022). The critical gift: Revaluing book reviews in educational philosophy and theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(5), 450–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1741335

Terry, J. L. (1996). Authorship in “College & Research Libraries” revisited: Gender, institutional affiliation, collaboration. College & Research Libraries, 57(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_57_04_377

Tobin, R. (2003). The commensality of book reviewing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 35(1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.35.1.47

Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006). ‘So what is the problem this book addresses?’: Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk, 26(6), 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.031

Tulley, C., & Blair, K. (2009). Remediating the book review: Toward collaboration and multimodality across the English curriculum. Pedagogy, 9(3), 441–469. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2009-005

Vakkari, P. (2024). What characterizes LIS as a fragmenting discipline? Journal of Documentation, 80(7), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2023-0207

Vakkari, P., Chang, Y., & Järvelin, K. (2022). Disciplinary contributions to research topics and methodology in library and information science—Leading to fragmentation? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(12), 1706–1722. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24690

Wei, Y., & Fan, W. (2018). A study of book reviews in SCI-Expanded, SSCI, and A&HCI journals by researchers from five countries: 2006–2015. Scientometrics, 115(2), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2679-9

Wiley, M. (1993). How to read a book: Reflections on the ethics of book reviewing. Journal of Advanced Composition, 477–492.

Zinkhan, G. M., & Clark, T. (1995). The role of books and book reviews in the knowledge dissemination process. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 106–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900109

Zou, H. J., & Hyland, K. (2022). How the medium shapes the message: Stance in two forms of book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 193, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.023

Zuccala, A., van Someren, M., & van Bellen, M. (2014). A machine-learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(11), 2248–2260. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23104

Zylinska, J. (1999). Book review/interview-a bit (e) of the other: An interview with Sue Golding. Parallax, 5(4), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/135346499249542