What citation patterns reveal about reading research and practice in academic libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose At the turn of the twenty-first century, academic libraries revived their tradition of working with readers, which resulted in a surge of publications in this area. However, the nature and thematic coverage of these publications has not changed dramatically in the past 18 years, signaling little advancement in the reach and scope of this professional activity. This paper aims to address the following research problem: What do citation patterns reveal about reading research and practice in academic libraries and do they point to interdisciplinary research and the presence of an evidence base or do they carry a mark of an inward disciplinary orientation? Design/methodology/approach This is a qualitative exploratory study, also involving descriptive statistics, that uses bibliographic and citation analysis as a method. Findings The study discovers a disconnect between the diversity of interdisciplinary research cited in the published work on reading in academic libraries and the sameness of respective professional practices; it describes a relatively small community of reading researchers in academic libraries, emerging as leaders who can change the direction and scope of reading practices; and it highlights a preference of academic librarians for relying on interdisciplinary knowledge about reading over building on the readers’ advisory experience of public librarians. Originality/value Translating the incredible wealth of interdisciplinary reading knowledge possessed by academic librarians into practical applications promises to advance and diversify reading practices in academic libraries. One method that could aid in this effort is more intentional learning from the readers’ advisory practices of public librarians.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.054 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".