The Landscapes of Sustainability in Library and Information Science: Diachronous Citation Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents an interesting discussion of sustainability within Library and Information Science (LIS), but its central argument requires further development to enhance clarity and impact. The paper struggles with connecting its methods and data (such as citation analysis and ASJC codes) to a coherent, overarching argument about sustainability in LIS, and it lacks sufficient depth in explaining the relevance of some of its figures and analysis tools. Here are some concerns with the paper:
- Although the notion of buildings is important due to their role in providing physical spaces, the primary function of these spaces is to offer safe, accessible environments for learning and community engagement. Sustainability should be presented as a means to enhance these goals, not overshadow them.
-The authors should more clearly articulate how sustainability complements and strengthens the core aims of the four areas they selected—information and ICT, collections, buildings, and education—such as promoting information literacy, access to knowledge, and resource management. Each of these areas plays a crucial role in ensuring that LIS continues to adapt to societal changes while maintaining long-term sustainability.
- The paper briefly mentions sustainability in the context of cultural preservation but fails to explore the complexities of balancing preservation with resource constraints. A deeper analysis of sustainable practices in cultural preservation is needed.
- The paper's reliance on citation metrics and a diachronous approach to demonstrate the relevance of sustainability in LIS is problematic. Citation analysis primarily tracks research trends and influence, not necessarily sustainability itself. The connection between these metrics and sustainability needs further clarification, or the paper should focus more on practical sustainability initiatives within LIS.
- Although the authors cite relevant sources, the paper seems to lack a clear theoretical framework linking sustainability and the life cycle of scientific publications. This connection needs to be strengthened with more targeted citations and a more in-depth analysis.
- Bibliometrics is inherently subject to the biases of the literature selection process—what gets included, what is left out, and how the scope of the review is defined. However, the paper is more prone to the issue of selection bias in this case because the author appears to present bibliometric analysis as an objective and unbiased method. This portrayal is problematic, as it risks overlooking the subjective decisions involved in curating the dataset, which could lead to skewed conclusions, especially in a field as diverse as sustainability in LIS.
- The diffusion of ASJC codes across multiple subject areas is expected due to the nature of how journals are categorized under multiple assignments. This would naturally lead to broader diffusion patterns, but the paper doesn't explicitly illustrate how this diffusion is occurring or how the ASJC codes contribute to understanding the spread of sustainability-related ideas. Without clear explanation or illustration of how ASJC was specifically used to track or analyze this diffusion, its inclusion feels incomplete. It is difficult to assess the discussion of ASJC's real impact or relevance in the analysis.
- The paper doesn't explicitly address how the diachronous approach could be applied to understanding the impact of technological changes, particularly ICT, on LIS over time. While technology has expanded the capabilities of libraries, it has also changed how people access information, often bypassing libraries altogether. A more compelling analysis would explore how LIS has sustained itself in the face of these technological shifts, examining the evolution of the field through a diachronous lens. This approach would highlight both the challenges and opportunities technology has created for libraries, offering deeper insights into the long-term sustainability of LIS in the digital age.
- Although the methods for the co-citation network are described in detail, the paper doesn't clearly explain what Figure 6 signifies or how specific elements like "digital libraries" fit into the broader argument. Co-citation networks can show relationships between topics, but without an explanation, it's unclear how "digital libraries" connect to the overarching themes of sustainability in LIS. The figure would benefit from a more in-depth interpretation to show how digital libraries, as a component of the network, reflect or support the authors' argument regarding sustainability and its diffusion across LIS subdisciplines. Without this, the figure feels disconnected from the narrative and lacks the context needed to understand its significance within the paper.
- The paper's argument seems more general and overarching, as it does not deeply explore how technological advancements, specifically ICT, have caused a shift in library use over time. The paper leans more toward illustrating citation life cycles rather than analyzing how technological changes have directly influenced LIS practices in sustainability. A broader perspective could further enrich the discussion of sustainability. The field of LIS has evolved significantly with the advent of ICT and AI, and sustainability in this context should also consider how these technologies transform information management, access, and services.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have submitted an interesting paper, which follows strict, appropriate adacemic approach. There is substanstial literature review, with clarified subject and research questions. Then, there is a well-explained methodology section. The findings and conclusions are significant and precise.
Language is easy-to-follow and of high standards.
Referencing is accurate, rich and consistent.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Congratulations for this long review and accurate analysis of the topic. I acknowledge all the work done.
The paper is well done and teh methodology used if fine. I only have a few comments and questions that I think you can take into consideration in order to improve the paper.
I know that SDG are quite known but I would suggest a link to them, either to the webpage or to any reference paper
When defining the research questions, you mention in Q2 research objects, which is a term that may lead to confusion, and later you are actually analyzing research topics. Therefore I suggest to us this later term
In the section on materials and methods you mention the data sources and you refer to a previous paper. I would like to see in this current paper a description on what was the strategy to find those papers, what you mention as cited works in Table 1. How did you select those works.
Another suggestion is to make available the two datasets. Have you considered to post the two files in a repository and make it available to the public?
You menton the ASJC codes without citing them and even without developing the acronym, All Science Journal Classification
In the results section, you describe the results that appear in Figure 2. Is it possible to make comparisons with similar analysis in other fields but LIS? Or in general? Is this a typical behaviour in citation?
At the end of the 4th section, you mention the effect of co-citation showing two tables: top cited works and top co-cited pairs. You mention that there is also a co-citation ranking, I think it could be useful to have teh cahnce to see it
When you mention in section 5 the limitations, I miss a reflection on how the choice of the data source has a geographical bias and a possible bias in multilinguism. How many papers of the dataset are in other languages instead of English. Do they follow a similar pattern?
Nothing else to add
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn reviewing this paper, I found it to be meticulously organized and well-presented, even if the content itself didn’t fully capture my interest. The structure and clarity of the arguments reflect strong attention to detail, making the paper accessible and straightforward to follow. While the specific insights may not have felt particularly compelling to me, I recognize that the approach and presentation could resonate well with other readers who have a keener interest in the topic. Ultimately, the paper’s packaging and coherent flow ensure that it holds value, and it may indeed appeal to an audience looking for structured analysis in this area.
