The Barriers to Producing High Quality Library and Information Science Research in Developing Countries: The Case of Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally recognized that in many developing countries, for a variety of reasons, research output in most disciplines lags behind that in the developed nations. Among the reasons is a range of factors that may hinder good-quality research outputs. This paper focuses on the matter of research quality in library and information science (LIS) in Pakistan as a case study. To test the types of barriers that the researcher believes hinder the production of quality research in Pakistan, a web-based survey was conducted using a questionnaire consisting of structured and open-ended questions. The questionnaire was based on a set of barriers to quality research production, which were identified from the literature. The respondents were asked to indicate their views on the impact of these barriers on the production of quality research. The data was analysed using SPSS. The findings reveal that the lack of critical thinking, a poor research culture, lack of encouragement of research, and inadequate imparting of research skills in LIS education are the most significant barriers. The study suggests that determining the order in which to tackle these barriers will facilitate the production of high-quality research in countries like Pakistan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.189 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".