Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

4.7k citations
897 papers · · active since 1950

Impact in

Papers in

    • Library Science and Information Literacy 310
    • Library Science and Administration 209
    • Web and Library Services 170
    • Library Collection Development and Digital Resources 111
    • Research Data Management Practices 36

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

686 papers receiving 3.6k citations

Peers

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Comparison fields: 5 of 173
  • Library and Information Sciences 1.6k
  • Information Systems 1.6k
  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty 329
  • Medical Terminology 10
  • Computer Science Applications 226
Replace Medical Reference Services Quarterly with:
Medical Reference Services Quarterly United States
Library journal United States
Australian Academic & Research Libraries Australia
Science & Technology Libraries United States
Education for Information United Kingdom
Collection Management United States
Information Services & Use United States
Reference & User Services Quarterly United States
The Reference Librarian United States
Library Collections Acquisitions and Technical Services United States
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice relative to Medical Reference Services Quarterly United States Medical Reference Services Quarterly's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
Medical Reference Services Quarterly · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by papers published in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Evidence Based Library and Information Practice more than expected).

Fields of papers published in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice.

About Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

The 897 papers published in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice in the last decades have received a total of 4.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice usually cover Library and Information Sciences (368 papers), Information Systems (332 papers), Issues, ethics and legal aspects (12 papers), Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty (56 papers) and General Health Professions (175 papers) specifically the topics of Library Science and Information Literacy (310 papers), Library Science and Administration (209 papers), Web and Library Services (170 papers), Health Sciences Research and Education (143 papers), Library Collection Development and Digital Resources (111 papers), scientometrics and bibliometrics research (37 papers), Research Data Management Practices (36 papers) and Health Literacy and Information Accessibility (31 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice are Virginia Wilson, Denise Koufogiannakis, Karen Davies, Jessie McGowan, Margaret Sampson, Carol Lefebvre, Amy J. Catalano, Alison Brettle, Natasha Wiebe and Jonathan D. Eldredge.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact