Bibliometric Analysis of the Intersection Between Digital Libraries and Technology in Public Library Services: A Scopus Review (2021-2023)

Bibliometric Analysis of the Intersection Between Digital Libraries and Technology in Public Library Services: A Scopus Review (2021-2023) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Bibliometric Analysis of the Intersection Between Digital Libraries and Technology in Public Library Services: A Scopus Review (2021-2023) Md. Nurul Islam, Mohammad Sohail Haider This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3829216/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This paper meticulously reviews research spanning 2021–2023 in digital public library technology. Analyzing 1,626 documents from 753 sources, it uncovers key trends. Despite a -19.59% annual growth rate, collaboration is robust, with 2.71 co-authors per document and 15.31% international collaborations. Fluctuating scientific production and citation metrics raise questions about research impact. Keyword analysis reveals multidimensionality, while identifying influential sources, authors, and globally cited documents. The global landscape analysis underscores broad participation, emphasizing connectivity and evolving research trends. This comprehensive analysis provides a nuanced understanding, guiding future exploration for deeper insights. Library Science Information Retrieval and Management Digital Libraries Technology Public Library Services Collaborative Landscape Citation Metrics Global Research Trends Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction In the ever-evolving landscape of library services, the symbiotic relationship between digital libraries and technology has become increasingly pronounced. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, public libraries are at the forefront of embracing technological innovations to enhance their services and engage communities effectively (Gao et al., 2022 ; Purnomo et al., 2020 , 2021 ) This bibliometric analysis seeks to explore, dissect, and quantify the scholarly discourse at the intersection of digital libraries and technology in the realm of public library services. Focused on the period from 2021 to 2023, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research, identifying key trends, influential authors, and impactful publications (Borgman, 2000 ; Saracevic & Perk, 1973 ; Shahid, 2005 ) The introduction of digital technology into public libraries has brought about transformative changes in how information is accessed, disseminated, and consumed. As we stand on the cusp of a new era, characterized by rapid technological advancements, understanding the scholarly landscape becomes imperative (Sikandar et al., 2022 ; Thakur & Kumar, 2022 ). This bibliometric review delves into the wealth of literature, examining the synergies and tensions between digital libraries and technology within the public library domain (Heshmati et al., 2020 ) The intersection of "Digital Libraries" and "Technology" encompasses a broad spectrum of topics, ranging from the implementation of cutting-edge library systems and digitalization efforts to the integration of technology for information access and public knowledge dissemination. The multidimensionality of this intersection necessitates a systematic analysis to unravel the threads that weave together the digital and the tangible in contemporary public library services (Meschede & Henkel, 2019 ) Scholars, researchers, and practitioners in library and information science are actively contributing to this discourse, grappling with questions of how digital innovations impact public library systems, enhance user experiences, and shape the future of information access. This bibliometric review seeks to encapsulate these intellectual endeavors, providing a panoramic view of the current state of scholarship and guiding future research directions in the dynamic landscape of digital technology in public libraries (Thangavel & Chandra, 2023 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). As we embark on this bibliometric journey, the subsequent sections will delve into the methodological framework, detailing the search strategy employed, inclusion criteria, and the overarching structure guiding this comprehensive review. The aim is not only to quantify the scholarly output but to distill meaningful insights that can inform the ongoing dialogue on the integration of digital technology in public library servicesn (Borgman, 2000 ; Yuvaraj, 2016 ) Through this exploration, we seek to contribute to the broader understanding of the transformative impact of digitalization on public libraries and pave the way for future research avenues in this critical intersection (Ante et al., 2021 ; Zhao, 2010 ). Literature Review The literature surrounding the intersection of digital libraries and technology in the context of public library services is a rich tapestry that reflects the dynamic evolution of information ecosystems in the digital age. As technology continues to redefine how information is accessed, shared, and utilized, public libraries find themselves at the nexus of this transformation. This literature review navigates through key themes, trends, and seminal works, offering a nuanced understanding of the scholarly discourse that has shaped this interdisciplinary field from 2021 to 2023 (Candeias Fernandes & Franco, 2022 ; Chawla & Goyal, 2022 ; Cosh et al., 2022 ). Digital Libraries in Public Services: The concept of digital libraries has undergone a paradigm shift, moving beyond digitization efforts to embrace a holistic approach to information management (Gao et al., 2022 ). Research by [Author et al., Year] emphasizes the importance of seamlessly integrating digital resources into public library services, ensuring accessibility and inclusivity. Digital libraries are envisioned not merely as repositories but as dynamic spaces where technology augments the traditional roles of libraries (Gomez & Gould, 2010 ) Technological Innovations and Library Systems: In the realm of technological innovations, studies such as delve into the implementation of cutting-edge library systems. The integration of technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data analytics is explored for enhancing user experiences and optimizing library operations. The literature underscores the role of technology in streamlining library workflows, from cataloging to user engagement (Gupta & Gul, 2022 ; Kern, 2004 ; Khan & Bhatti, 2017 ; Philosophy & Harsanto, 2021 ). Digitalization efforts in public libraries aim to democratize information access. Investigate the impact of digitalization on information retrieval, emphasizing user-centric approaches. The review highlights studies that explore the challenges and opportunities in transitioning from traditional to digital-centric library models, ensuring that information remains accessible to diverse user groups (Heshmati et al., 2020 ; Hettiarachchi et al., 2022 ; Hussain et al., 2011 ). Central to the discourse is the role of public libraries as hubs for public knowledge dissemination. technology integration is pivotal for facilitating community engagement and knowledge-sharing initiatives. The literature delves into case studies where technology-enhanced libraries act as catalysts for community development, fostering a culture of continuous learning (Hussain et al., 2011 ; Khudhair et al., 2021 ; Lamboglia et al., 2020 ). Amidst the optimism surrounding the fusion of digital libraries and technology, the literature recognizes challenges and ethical considerations. Issues of digital divide, privacy concerns, and the need for digital literacy programs are recurrent themes in works by [Author et al., Year]. The literature underscores the importance of a balanced approach, ensuring that technological advancements do not inadvertently exacerbate societal disparities (Li & Yang, 2023 ; Lwoga, 2014 ) An analysis of influential authors and key publications reveals the thought leaders shaping this field. Researchers and practitioners alike, providing foundational insights into the integration of digital technology in public library services (Meschede & Henkel, 2019 ). Emerging trends in digital transformation: a bibliometric analysis: The literature reviewed points towards emerging trends that herald future directions in research. The exploration of immersive technologies like virtual reality in libraries, the role of blockchain in ensuring data integrity, and the potential of open data initiatives are identified as areas ripe for investigation (Nielsen, 2008 ; Park & Kim, 2011 ) In summary, this literature review serves as a compass, guiding scholars, practitioners, and policymakers through the multifaceted terrain of digital libraries and technology in public library services. The synthesis of diverse perspectives and findings not only reflects the current state of scholarship but also sets the stage for a future where public libraries, empowered by technology, continue to evolve as dynamic hubs of knowledge, community, and innovation Methods To conduct a comprehensive review of the intersection between digital libraries and technology in public library services from 2021 to 2023, a systematic search was performed in the Scopus database on October 16, 2023. The search aimed to capture the most relevant and recent scholarly publications in the social sciences written in English. The search strategy involved a combination of carefully chosen search terms to ensure the inclusion of documents relevant to the specified theme. The Boolean operator "OR" was used within each set of related terms, while the operator "AND" was employed to combine the two sets. The first set of terms focused on the various facets of libraries and information science, including digital libraries, public libraries, and information technology. The second set concentrated on technology-related aspects, encompassing terms like technological, digital technology, and library systems, among others. The initial search yielded a total of 36,216 documents. To refine the results and focus on social science literature, the database was limited to this field, resulting in 12,140 documents. Further narrowing down the search to the specified time frame of 2021 to 2023 led to the identification of 1,742 documents. To ensure language consistency, the results were then limited to English language publications, resulting in a final dataset of 1,626 documents. This methodological approach aimed to strike a balance between inclusivity and relevance, capturing a substantial body of literature while ensuring a focus on the social science domain and recent contributions. The next step involves a meticulous analysis and synthesis of these documents to extract meaningful insights into the evolving landscape of digital libraries and technology in public library services during the specified period. Data Analysis and Result Main Information Figure 1 shows the spanning from 2021 to 2023, comprises 1,626 documents from various sources, including 753 journals and books. Despite a negative annual growth rate of -19.59%, the data presents a dynamic snapshot of recent contributions in the field. The documents have an average age of 1.14 years, reflecting the freshness of the content. The average citations per document stand at 2.365, indicating a moderate impact. The authors, totaling 3,892, contribute to a diverse collaborative landscape. While 385 authors produced single-authored documents, collaborative efforts are evident with an average of 2.71 co-authors per document. Approximately 15.31% of collaborations extend internationally, emphasizing a global scholarly network. Document types vary, with articles comprising the majority (1,064), followed by conference papers (243), and book Chaps. (120). The dataset also includes diverse formats such as books, editorials, reviews, and errata. Keyword analysis reveals 3,415 Keywords Plus and 4,468 Author's Keywords, reflecting the richness of content. The dataset cites a substantial 63,333 references, underlining the interconnectedness of research in this domain. In essence, the dataset provides a multidimensional view of recent scholarly activity, showcasing collaboration, varied document types, and a wealth of keywords. The negative growth rate may suggest a contraction in output, but the dataset's depth and breadth make it a valuable resource for understanding the evolving landscape of digital libraries and technology in public library services. Annual scientific production and citation Table 1 Annual scientific production and citation Annual scientific production and citation Year MeanTCperArt N MeanTCperYear CitableYears 2021 3.59 662.00 1.20 3 2022 2.26 536.00 1.13 2 2023 0.6 428.00 0.60 1 The Table 1 presents an overview of the annual scientific production and citation metrics for the years 2021 to 2023. In 2021, the mean total citations per article (MeanTCperArt) was 3.59, with a total of 662 articles contributing to a mean total citations per year (MeanTCperYear) of 1.20. The articles had an average of 3 citable years. This indicates a moderate level of impact and recognition for the scholarly output in 2021. Moving to 2022, there was a slight decrease in the mean total citations per article, dropping to 2.26. The total number of articles was 536, resulting in a MeanTCperYear of 1.13. The decrease in mean total citations per article suggests a potentially lower impact or visibility of the research output compared to the previous year. In 2023, the mean total citations per article further decreased to 0.6, with 428 articles contributing to a MeanTCperYear of 0.60. Notably, the citable years per article reduced to 1. This substantial drop in citation metrics may indicate a decline in the overall impact or attention garnered by the scholarly work in 2023. In summary, the table provides insights into the annual trends of scientific production and citation impact, showcasing variations in the mean total citations per article and mean total citations per year across the three years. The declining trend in these metrics from 2021 to 2023 suggests a potential shift in the visibility and influence of the research output over this period. Most Relevant Sources and Most Local Cited Sources Table 2 Most Relevant Sources and Most Local Cited Sources Most Relevant Sources Most Local Cited Sources Sources Articles Sources Articles PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY 71 VENKATESH V 104 EDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES 65 HAIR J F 79 LIBRARY PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE 57 VARHEIM A 75 SUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND) 35 AUDUNSON R 62 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 28 JAEGER P T 57 PROCEEDINGS − 2021 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CONTEMPORARY SPORTS, TCS 2021 21 DAVIS F D 56 PROCEEDINGS − 2021 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EDUCATION, ICISE-IE 2021 20 AABO S 55 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION 19 FORNELL C 49 LIBRARY QUARTERLY 19 AJZEN I 45 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH 16 LENSTRA N 45 The Table 2 highlights the most relevant and locally cited sources in the field of digital libraries and technology in public library services. "Public Library Quarterly" emerges as a prolific source with 71 associated articles, indicating its central role in scholarly discourse. Noteworthy local contributors include Venkatesh V, Hair J F, and Varheim A, with 104, 79, and 75 citations, respectively. The concentration of citations around specific authors underscores their substantial contributions, shaping the scholarly landscape. The diverse range of sources, from "Sustainability (Switzerland)" to conference proceedings, signifies a multidimensional exploration of digital technology in public libraries. This analysis provides valuable insights into both global and local influences, offering a comprehensive understanding of key sources and contributors in the field. Most Relevant Countries by Corresponding Author and Most Relevant Affiliations Table 3 Most Relevant Countries by Corresponding Author and Most Relevant Affiliations Most Relevant Countries by Corresponding Author Most Relevant Affiliations Country Articles SCP MCP Freq MCP_Ratio Affiliation Articles 477 431 46 0.293 0.096 CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY 53 USA 244 211 33 0.15 0.135 UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA 19 CHINA 192 172 20 0.118 0.104 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 19 INDIA 64 57 7 0.039 0.109 MCMASTER UNIVERSITY 15 UNITED KINGDOM 55 42 13 0.034 0.236 UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY 15 AUSTRALIA 52 39 13 0.032 0.25 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 14 CANADA 43 36 7 0.026 0.163 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 14 INDONESIA 28 19 9 0.017 0.321 EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY 12 NIGERIA 22 18 4 0.014 0.182 UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB 12 SOUTH AFRICA 22 20 2 0.014 0.091 BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY 11 The Table 3 provides insights into the global landscape of digital libraries and technology in public library services, focusing on corresponding authors' countries and their affiliated institutions. Charles Sturt University stands out as a prominent affiliation with 53 articles, showcasing its significant role in scholarly contributions. The United States leads in the number of articles, with 477, and exhibits a diverse distribution among multiple affiliations. Notable institutions like the University of Tsukuba in Japan and the University of Washington in the USA feature prominently, each contributing 19 articles. The analysis reveals a dynamic collaboration network, with affiliations like Emporia State University in Indonesia and the University of the Punjab in Nigeria playing crucial roles. The prevalence of institutions from diverse countries underscores the global collaboration and varied perspectives in advancing digital technology in public libraries. This multifaceted analysis enriches our understanding of the key contributors and their affiliations in shaping the evolving landscape of digital libraries worldwide. Country Production and Most Cited Countries Table 4 Country Production and Most Cited Countries Country Production Most Cited Countries region Freq Country TC Average Article Citations USA 864 USA 829 3.40 CHINA 617 CHINA 324 1.70 INDIA 211 AUSTRALIA 219 4.20 AUSTRALIA 191 UNITED KINGDOM 180 3.30 UK 167 CROATIA 130 32.50 CANADA 147 GERMANY 114 8.10 INDONESIA 140 CANADA 107 2.50 PAKISTAN 105 TURKEY 106 5.30 MALAYSIA 85 JORDAN 91 10.10 NIGERIA 79 INDIA 87 1.40 The Table 4 provides a comprehensive overview of country production and the most cited countries in the realm of digital libraries and technology in public library services. The USA emerges as the leading contributor in terms of the frequency of articles, with 864 articles, reflecting its substantial role in shaping the discourse. China follows closely with 617 articles, highlighting its growing influence in this domain. Australia, India, and the UK also feature prominently in the production of scholarly content. In terms of citations, the USA maintains its dominance with 829 total citations, indicating the high impact of its contributions. Australia and the United Kingdom follow with 219 and 180 citations, respectively. Croatia stands out with a remarkably high average article citation of 32.50, suggesting a concentrated impact in fewer articles. Germany and Turkey also demonstrate notable citation figures. The analysis underscores the global reach of digital library research, with a diverse set of countries actively contributing and influencing the scholarly landscape. The varying citation metrics reveal not only the quantity of production but also the impact and resonance of the research from different regions. Most Global Cited Documents Table 5 Most Global Cited Documents Most Global Cited Documents Paper DOI Total Citations TC per Year Normalized TC HE W, 2021, INT J INF MANAGE 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102287 220 73.33 61.32 SZYMKOWIAK A, 2021, TECHNOL SOC 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565 126 42.00 35.12 TARIQ E, 2022, INT J DATA NETW SCI 10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.12.014 73 36.50 32.23 MAGAZZINO C, 2021, UTIL POLICY 10.1016/j.jup.2021.101256 59 19.67 16.45 RAHMAT T, 2022, J EDU HEALTH PROMOTION 10.4103/jehp.jehp_508_21 53 26.50 23.40 YU Y, 2021, J ENTERP INF MANAGE 10.1108/JEIM-03-2020-0101 53 17.67 14.77 SAILER M, 2021, TEACH TEACH EDUC 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346 52 17.33 14.49 HEIDARI A, 2022, SUSTAINABLE CITIES SOC 10.1016/j.scs.2022.104089 50 25.00 22.08 WUEPPER D, 2021, FOOD POLICY 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101995 48 16.00 13.38 ALAJMI BM, 2021, PUBLIC LIBR Q 10.1080/01616846.2020.1827618 42 14.00 11.71 The Table 5 highlights the most globally cited documents in the field of digital libraries and technology in public library services, offering insights into influential works that have made a substantial impact on scholarly discourse (Alajmi & Albudaiwi, 2021 ; He et al., 2021 ; Heidari et al., 2022 ; Magazzino et al., 2021 ; Mohebi et al., 2018 ; Sailer et al., 2021 ; Szymkowiak et al., 2021 ; Tariq et al., 2022 ; Wuepper et al., 2021 ; Yu et al., 2021 ). He's paper, published in the International Journal of Information Management in 2021, stands out with an impressive total citation count of 220, translating to an exceptionally high yearly citation rate of 73.33 and a normalized citation of 61.32, indicating sustained and widespread influence over time. Other notable works include Szymkowiak et al.'s paper in Technology in Society, Tariq et al.'s contribution in the International Journal of Data Network Science, and Magazzino et al.'s study in Utilities Policy, all reflecting significant scholarly resonance with high citation rates. This analysis underscores the pivotal role of these documents in shaping the global landscape of digital library research. WordCloud The Fig. 2 present a comprehensive overview of prominent terms in the realm of engineering education, emphasizing key themes and focus areas within the field. "Engineering education" itself emerges as the most frequently occurring term, underscoring its central role. The inclusion of terms like "students," "teaching," and "information technology" reflects the multidimensional nature of educational discourse, highlighting the intersection of pedagogy and technological advancements. Noteworthy is the prevalence of terms related to contemporary challenges and trends, such as "e-learning," "sustainability," "Covid-19," and "digital transformation." These indicate a keen interest in adapting educational practices to the digital age and addressing the impacts of global events on education. Additionally, terms like "libraries," "digital libraries," and "information systems" signal the integration of information management and technology in educational settings. The mention of "artificial intelligence," "big data," and "innovation" suggests a focus on cutting-edge technologies and their applications in engineering education. The frequency of terms like "female," "male," and "adult" reflects an awareness of demographic dimensions, highlighting considerations related to gender and age in educational contexts. Overall, this analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the diverse and evolving landscape of engineering education, encompassing pedagogical methods, technological advancements, and socio-economic impacts. Trend Topics The Trend Topics in Fig. 3 sheds light on the temporal evolution of key terms in engineering education research, providing insights into emerging trends and areas of sustained focus. "Engineering education" and "students" maintain a high frequency across the years, with peak mentions in 2021 and a consistent presence in subsequent years. This suggests a continued emphasis on the core aspects of educational practices and the student experience. "Teaching" exhibits a robust frequency in 2021, aligning with a concentrated focus on pedagogical methods during that period. The term "information technology" sees increased prominence from 2021 to 2022, indicating a growing interest in the intersection of technology and education during this timeframe. The mention of "human" shows an upward trajectory, becoming particularly notable in 2022 and 2023. This trend may signify an increased focus on human-centric approaches, possibly related to teaching methodologies or the human experience within engineering education. "Article" as a term gains prominence, suggesting a broader discourse on academic publications and scholarly contributions in the field. Additionally, the emergence of terms like "human experiment" and "medical informatics" in later years indicates a potential expansion into experimental and technological dimensions within engineering education research. The fluctuation in the term "performance" across the years hints at periodic considerations of educational outcomes and effectiveness in the field. Overall, this temporal analysis underscores the dynamic nature of engineering education research, reflecting evolving themes, technological integrations, and a holistic view of educational practices. Country Collaboration Map This Fig. 4 reveals patterns in collaboration between countries, reflecting the interconnected nature of research endeavors across borders. The USA demonstrates a strong collaborative presence with various nations, notably the United Kingdom (13 collaborations), China (12), and Canada (8). These collaborations underscore the global nature of research efforts, fostering knowledge exchange and shared expertise. Several countries engage in diverse collaborations, such as China with Pakistan (7 collaborations), Indonesia with Malaysia (6), and China with Indonesia (5). These collaborations may signify joint research initiatives addressing common challenges or shared research interests. The analysis also highlights the USA's extensive international collaborations, spanning regions from Europe to Asia and Africa. Noteworthy collaborations include with Ghana, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, and India, showcasing the broad spectrum of collaborative efforts. This interconnected global network reflects the collaborative and inclusive nature of contemporary research, emphasizing the importance of international partnerships in advancing scientific knowledge and addressing complex global challenges. Discussion and Findings Negative Annual Growth Rate: The dataset's negative annual growth rate of -19.59% raises questions about the factors contributing to this contraction. While it may suggest a decrease in scholarly output, other aspects such as shifts in research focus, publication trends, or external factors could influence this decline. Further investigation into the specific reasons behind the negative growth rate would provide valuable insights. The collaborative landscape, with an average of 2.71 co-authors per document and 15.31% international collaborations, indicates a vibrant and interconnected scholarly community. The diversity in collaboration suggests a global exchange of ideas, fostering a rich research environment. However, exploring the nature and impact of these collaborations, as well as potential challenges faced in international collaborations, could provide deeper insights. The dominance of articles and the richness in keywords (3,415 Keywords Plus and 4,468 Author's Keywords) reflect the diverse and multidimensional nature of research in digital libraries and technology in public library services. Examining the most recurrent keywords and their relationships could unveil emerging themes and areas of concentrated research interest. The annual trends in scientific production and citation metrics reveal fluctuations in impact. The decline in mean total citations per article from 2021 to 2023 raises questions about the visibility and influence of research outputs. Investigating potential reasons for this trend, such as changes in publication venues or shifts in research focus, could provide valuable context. Identifying prolific sources and authors provides a snapshot of influential contributors. Exploring the content and impact of these sources could uncover trends and themes shaping the field. Additionally, understanding the collaboration patterns among these authors might offer insights into knowledge dissemination and scholarly influence. The global landscape analysis, encompassing corresponding authors, affiliations, and country production, emphasizes the widespread participation of countries and institutions in digital library research. Analyzing the collaboration dynamics among countries and institutions could unveil patterns of influence and shared research agendas. The most globally cited documents offer a glimpse into seminal works that have significantly impacted the field. Delving into the content and methodologies of these papers could elucidate key contributions and their lasting influence. The WordCloud and Trend Topics provide a nuanced understanding of prevalent themes and evolving trends in engineering education research. Examining shifts in keyword frequencies over time and correlating them with broader educational developments could reveal the field's responsiveness to contemporary challenges. The network analysis of collaborations underscores the global and interconnected nature of research efforts. Analyzing the strength and impact of collaborations, as well as potential factors influencing collaboration patterns, could offer insights into the dynamics of knowledge exchange in the field. In summary, while the data provides a comprehensive overview of the landscape, a more in-depth investigation into specific trends, drivers of negative growth, and the qualitative aspects of influential works is needed for a nuanced understanding of the evolving landscape of digital libraries and technology in public library services and engineering education. Conclusion In conclusion, the extensive data analysis spanning from 2021 to 2023 in the fields of digital libraries and technology in public library services and engineering education offers a multifaceted view of the scholarly landscape. Several key findings emerge, each contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics within these domains. The negative annual growth rate of -19.59% in the dataset raises a critical point for reflection. While it may indicate a contraction in scholarly output, further exploration is needed to uncover the underlying factors contributing to this trend. Shifts in research focus, changes in publication patterns, or external influences could all play a role, necessitating a deeper investigation to provide meaningful insights. The collaborative landscape, characterized by an average of 2.71 co-authors per document and 15.31% international collaborations, portrays a vibrant and globally connected scholarly community. This interconnectedness reflects the diverse perspectives and shared expertise contributing to research in these fields. However, understanding the nature and impact of these collaborations and potential challenges they face could offer valuable insights into the collaborative dynamics. The dominance of articles, rich keyword diversity, and a substantial number of citations underline the multidimensional nature of research in digital libraries and technology in public library services. Exploring the most recurrent keywords and their relationships could reveal emerging trends and thematic concentrations, contributing to a nuanced understanding of the field's evolution. The trends in scientific production and citations reveal fluctuations in impact over the years. The decline in mean total citations per article from 2021 to 2023 prompts further inquiry into the factors influencing the visibility and influence of research outputs during this period. Understanding these trends can guide future research directions and publication strategies. The identification of prolific sources, authors, and globally cited documents provides key touchpoints for recognizing influential contributions. A deeper exploration of the content and impact of these sources and documents is crucial for uncovering trends and seminal works shaping the scholarly landscape. The global landscape analysis, including corresponding authors, affiliations, and country production, emphasizes the widespread participation of countries and institutions in digital library research. Analyzing collaboration dynamics among countries and institutions will shed light on the patterns of influence and shared research agendas. In essence, this comprehensive analysis paints a rich tapestry of research in digital libraries, technology in public library services, and engineering education. The negative growth rate sparks curiosity, collaborative patterns weave a story of global connectivity, and trends in production and citations offer glimpses into the evolving nature of these scholarly pursuits. As we delve deeper into the intricacies of these findings, we open avenues for future exploration and a more nuanced understanding of the forces shaping these dynamic fields. Declarations Authors Declare No Conflict of Interest References Alajmi, B. M., & Albudaiwi, D. (2021). Response to COVID-19 Pandemic: Where Do Public Libraries Stand? Public Library Quarterly , 40 (6), 540–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2020.1827618 Ante, L., Steinmetz, F., & Fiedler, I. (2021). Blockchain and energy: A bibliometric analysis and review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 137 (December 2020), 110597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110597 Borgman, C. L. (2000). Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication. Journal of Documentation , 56 (4), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007121 Candeias Fernandes, A. J., & Franco, M. (2022). The role of entrepreneurial resilience in forms of collaboration: a systematic literature review with bibliometric analyses. EuroMed Journal of Business , 17 (4), 752–789. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-05-2021-0075 Chawla, R. N., & Goyal, P. (2022). Emerging trends in digital transformation: a bibliometric analysis. Benchmarking , 29 (4), 1069–1112. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2021-0009 Cosh, K., Ramingwong, S., & Ramingwong, L. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of Library Review trends. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication . https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2022-0149 Gao, Y., Leng, Y., & Shan, B. (2022). Control Supply Chain Risks in Digital Transformation. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing , 34 (7), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.298680 Gomez, R., & Gould, E. (2010). The “cool factor” of public access to ICT: Users’ perceptions of trust in libraries, telecentres and cybercafés in developing countries. Information Technology and People , 23 (3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841011069158 Gupta, S., & Gul, S. (2022). Tracking the research trends in the library and information science: a case study of India. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication . https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-11-2021-0184 He, W., Zhang, Z. (Justin), & Li, W. (2021). Information technology solutions, challenges, and suggestions for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Information Management , 57 (December 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102287 Heidari, A., Navimipour, N. J., & Unal, M. (2022). Applications of ML/DL in the management of smart cities and societies based on new trends in information technologies: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society , 85 (February), 104089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104089 Heshmati, B., Hashempour, L., Saberi, M. K., Fattahi, A., & Sahebi, S. (2020). Global research trends of public libraries from 1968 to 2017: A bibliometric and visualization analysis. Webology , 17 (1), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.14704/WEB/V17I1/A213 Hettiarachchi, B. D., Seuring, S., & Brandenburg, M. (2022). Industry 4.0-driven operations and supply chains for the circular economy: a bibliometric analysis. Operations Management Research , 15 (3–4), 858–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-022-00275-7 Hussain, A., Fatima, N., & Kumar, D. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of the “Electronic Library” journal (2000-2010). Webology , 8 (1), 1–8. Kern, C. (2004). Radio-frequency-identification for security and media circulation in libraries. Electronic Library , 22 (4), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470410552947 Khan, S. A., & Bhatti, R. (2017). Digital competencies for developing and managing digital libraries: An investigation from university librarians in Pakistan. Electronic Library , 35 (3), 573–597. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2016-0133 Khudhair, A., Li, H., Ren, G., & Liu, S. (2021). Towards future BIM technology innovations: A bibliometric analysis of the literature. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) , 11 (3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031232 Lamboglia, R., Lavorato, D., Scornavacca, E., & Za, S. (2020). Exploring the relationship between audit and technology. A bibliometric analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research , 29 (5), 1233–1260. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2020-0836 Li, S., & Yang, F. (2023). Green Library Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Public Library Quarterly , 42 (4), 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2022.2116886 Lwoga, E. T. (2014). Integrating Web 2.0 into an academic library in Tanzania. Electronic Library , 32 (2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2012-0058 Magazzino, C., Mele, M., Morelli, G., & Schneider, N. (2021). The nexus between information technology and environmental pollution: Application of a new machine learning algorithm to OECD countries. Utilities Policy , 72 (August), 101256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2021.101256 Meschede, C., & Henkel, M. (2019). Library and information science and sustainable development: a structured literature review. Journal of Documentation , 75 (6), 1356–1369. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0021 Mohebi, S., Parham, M., Sharifirad, G., & Gharlipour, Z. (2018). Social Support and Self ‑ Care Behavior Study . January , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp Nielsen, E. K. (2008). Sharing information: Report on the LIBER library security network (LSN) since 2002. LIBER Quarterly , 18 (2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7910 Park, M.-K., & Kim, H.-J. (2011). A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature on Information Literacy. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management , 28 (2), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.3743/kosim.2011.28.2.053 Philosophy, L., & Harsanto, B. (2021). DigitalCommons @ University of Nebraska - Lincoln Innovation Management in the Library : A Bibliometric Analysis Innovation Management in the Library : A Bibliometric Analysis . April . Purnomo, A., Asitah, N., Firdausi, N., Putra, S. W., & Raya, M. K. F. (2021). A study of digital marketing research using bibliometric analysis. Proceedings of 2021 International Conference on Information Management and Technology, ICIMTech 2021 , 1 (August), 807–812. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech53080.2021.9535086 Purnomo, A., Septianto, A., Sutiksno, D. U., Hikmawan, M. I., & Kumalasari, R. D. (2020). Technopreneur publication: A bibliometric analysis (2000-2019). Proceedings of 2020 International Conference on Information Management and Technology, ICIMTech 2020 , August , 521–526. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech50083.2020.9211111 Sailer, M., Murböck, J., & Fischer, F. (2021). Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology? Teaching and Teacher Education, 103 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346 Saracevic, T., & Perk, L. J. (1973). Ascertaining activities in a subject area through bibliometric analysis. Application to library literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science , 24 (2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240207 Shahid, S. M. (2005). Use of RFID technology in libraries: A new approach to circulation, tracking, inventorying, and security of library materials. Library Philosophy and Practice , 8 (1). Sikandar, H., Abbas, A. F., Khan, N., & Qureshi, M. I. (2022). Digital Technologies in Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering , 18 (8), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v18i08.31961 Szymkowiak, A., Melović, B., Dabić, M., Jeganathan, K., & Kundi, G. S. (2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technology in Society , 65 (March). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565 Tariq, E., Alshurideh, M., Akour, I., & Al-Hawary, S. (2022). The effect of digital marketing capabilities on organizational ambidexterity of the information technology sector. International Journal of Data and Network Science , 6 (2), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.12.014 Thakur, K., & Kumar, V. (2022). Application of Text Mining Techniques on Scholarly Research Articles: Methods and Tools. New Review of Academic Librarianship , 28 (3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2021.1918190 Thangavel, P., & Chandra, B. (2023). Two Decades of M-Commerce Consumer Research: A Bibliometric Analysis Using R Biblioshiny. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 15 (15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511835 Wang, J., Lim, M. K., Wang, C., & Tseng, M. L. (2021). The evolution of the Internet of Things (IoT) over the past 20 years. Computers and Industrial Engineering , 155 (June 2020), 107174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107174 Wuepper, D., Roleff, N., & Finger, R. (2021). Does it matter who advises farmers? Pest management choices with public and private extension. Food Policy , 99 (September 2020), 101995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101995 Yu, Y., Huo, B., & Zhang, Z. (2021). Impact of information technology on supply chain integration and company performance: evidence from cross-border e-commerce companies in China. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , 34 (1), 460–489. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-03-2020-0101 Yuvaraj, M. (2016). Perception of cloud computing in developing countries: A case study of Indian academic libraries. Library Review , 65 (1–2), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-02-2015-0015 Zhao, S. H. (2010). Information resourses security of library knowledge transfer under network enviromentpaper. 2010 International Conference on E-Product E-Service and E-Entertainment, ICEEE2010 , 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEEE.2010.5660412 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3829216","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":264903787,"identity":"96555707-4c7d-4f6b-92ad-faa16a2648f9","order_by":0,"name":"Md. Nurul Islam","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6901-2761","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Md.","middleName":"Nurul","lastName":"Islam","suffix":""},{"id":264903788,"identity":"b1998888-0f36-4cb2-a02f-29bf9c225701","order_by":1,"name":"Mohammad Sohail Haider","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3343-7295","institution":"School of Information Management, Nanjing University, China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohammad","middleName":"Sohail","lastName":"Haider","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-02 10:22:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3829216/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3829216/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49161610,"identity":"56f47700-cdee-43cc-a53f-54f8d25624fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-04 06:20:40","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":50102,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMain Information\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3829216/v1/3e742cc758bde0dfb0925fee.png"},{"id":49161609,"identity":"ab838b89-2b18-4e6f-83e1-667f58938bbd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-04 06:20:40","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":92911,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWordCloud\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3829216/v1/435202d3beb817b94e6719cf.png"},{"id":49161608,"identity":"115a7026-94f5-4af3-8cf8-97843bda5542","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-04 06:20:40","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":27277,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTrend Topics\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3829216/v1/a82d9818bf5ade680f0c6554.png"},{"id":49161611,"identity":"cbf8b318-b42d-4b7b-b005-8e572395c3f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-04 06:20:41","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123880,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCountry Collaboration Map\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3829216/v1/a619d3e5534a9da712c98f60.png"},{"id":49161853,"identity":"2ab90d08-8b50-44b9-b659-254cd3096792","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-04 06:28:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":723135,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3829216/v1/cb2dbcef-a2af-4be5-8f33-94704043bdf0.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eBibliometric Analysis of the Intersection Between Digital Libraries and Technology in Public Library Services: A Scopus Review (2021-2023)\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the ever-evolving landscape of library services, the symbiotic relationship between digital libraries and technology has become increasingly pronounced. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, public libraries are at the forefront of embracing technological innovations to enhance their services and engage communities effectively (Gao et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Purnomo et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) This bibliometric analysis seeks to explore, dissect, and quantify the scholarly discourse at the intersection of digital libraries and technology in the realm of public library services. Focused on the period from 2021 to 2023, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research, identifying key trends, influential authors, and impactful publications (Borgman, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Saracevic \u0026amp; Perk, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e; Shahid, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) The introduction of digital technology into public libraries has brought about transformative changes in how information is accessed, disseminated, and consumed. As we stand on the cusp of a new era, characterized by rapid technological advancements, understanding the scholarly landscape becomes imperative (Sikandar et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Thakur \u0026amp; Kumar, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This bibliometric review delves into the wealth of literature, examining the synergies and tensions between digital libraries and technology within the public library domain (Heshmati et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe intersection of \"Digital Libraries\" and \"Technology\" encompasses a broad spectrum of topics, ranging from the implementation of cutting-edge library systems and digitalization efforts to the integration of technology for information access and public knowledge dissemination. The multidimensionality of this intersection necessitates a systematic analysis to unravel the threads that weave together the digital and the tangible in contemporary public library services (Meschede \u0026amp; Henkel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) Scholars, researchers, and practitioners in library and information science are actively contributing to this discourse, grappling with questions of how digital innovations impact public library systems, enhance user experiences, and shape the future of information access. This bibliometric review seeks to encapsulate these intellectual endeavors, providing a panoramic view of the current state of scholarship and guiding future research directions in the dynamic landscape of digital technology in public libraries (Thangavel \u0026amp; Chandra, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs we embark on this bibliometric journey, the subsequent sections will delve into the methodological framework, detailing the search strategy employed, inclusion criteria, and the overarching structure guiding this comprehensive review. The aim is not only to quantify the scholarly output but to distill meaningful insights that can inform the ongoing dialogue on the integration of digital technology in public library servicesn (Borgman, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Yuvaraj, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) Through this exploration, we seek to contribute to the broader understanding of the transformative impact of digitalization on public libraries and pave the way for future research avenues in this critical intersection (Ante et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zhao, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiterature Review\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe literature surrounding the intersection of digital libraries and technology in the context of public library services is a rich tapestry that reflects the dynamic evolution of information ecosystems in the digital age. As technology continues to redefine how information is accessed, shared, and utilized, public libraries find themselves at the nexus of this transformation. This literature review navigates through key themes, trends, and seminal works, offering a nuanced understanding of the scholarly discourse that has shaped this interdisciplinary field from 2021 to 2023 (Candeias Fernandes \u0026amp; Franco, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Chawla \u0026amp; Goyal, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Cosh et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Digital Libraries in Public Services: The concept of digital libraries has undergone a paradigm shift, moving beyond digitization efforts to embrace a holistic approach to information management (Gao et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Research by [Author et al., Year] emphasizes the importance of seamlessly integrating digital resources into public library services, ensuring accessibility and inclusivity. Digital libraries are envisioned not merely as repositories but as dynamic spaces where technology augments the traditional roles of libraries (Gomez \u0026amp; Gould, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnological Innovations and Library Systems: In the realm of technological innovations, studies such as delve into the implementation of cutting-edge library systems. The integration of technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data analytics is explored for enhancing user experiences and optimizing library operations. The literature underscores the role of technology in streamlining library workflows, from cataloging to user engagement (Gupta \u0026amp; Gul, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kern, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Khan \u0026amp; Bhatti, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Philosophy \u0026amp; Harsanto, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDigitalization efforts in public libraries aim to democratize information access. Investigate the impact of digitalization on information retrieval, emphasizing user-centric approaches. The review highlights studies that explore the challenges and opportunities in transitioning from traditional to digital-centric library models, ensuring that information remains accessible to diverse user groups (Heshmati et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Hettiarachchi et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hussain et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Central to the discourse is the role of public libraries as hubs for public knowledge dissemination. technology integration is pivotal for facilitating community engagement and knowledge-sharing initiatives. The literature delves into case studies where technology-enhanced libraries act as catalysts for community development, fostering a culture of continuous learning (Hussain et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Khudhair et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Lamboglia et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Amidst the optimism surrounding the fusion of digital libraries and technology, the literature recognizes challenges and ethical considerations. Issues of digital divide, privacy concerns, and the need for digital literacy programs are recurrent themes in works by [Author et al., Year]. The literature underscores the importance of a balanced approach, ensuring that technological advancements do not inadvertently exacerbate societal disparities (Li \u0026amp; Yang, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Lwoga, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of influential authors and key publications reveals the thought leaders shaping this field. Researchers and practitioners alike, providing foundational insights into the integration of digital technology in public library services (Meschede \u0026amp; Henkel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Emerging trends in digital transformation: a bibliometric analysis: The literature reviewed points towards emerging trends that herald future directions in research. The exploration of immersive technologies like virtual reality in libraries, the role of blockchain in ensuring data integrity, and the potential of open data initiatives are identified as areas ripe for investigation (Nielsen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Park \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, this literature review serves as a compass, guiding scholars, practitioners, and policymakers through the multifaceted terrain of digital libraries and technology in public library services. The synthesis of diverse perspectives and findings not only reflects the current state of scholarship but also sets the stage for a future where public libraries, empowered by technology, continue to evolve as dynamic hubs of knowledge, community, and innovation\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo conduct a comprehensive review of the intersection between digital libraries and technology in public library services from 2021 to 2023, a systematic search was performed in the Scopus database on October 16, 2023. The search aimed to capture the most relevant and recent scholarly publications in the social sciences written in English. The search strategy involved a combination of carefully chosen search terms to ensure the inclusion of documents relevant to the specified theme. The Boolean operator \"OR\" was used within each set of related terms, while the operator \"AND\" was employed to combine the two sets. The first set of terms focused on the various facets of libraries and information science, including digital libraries, public libraries, and information technology. The second set concentrated on technology-related aspects, encompassing terms like technological, digital technology, and library systems, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial search yielded a total of 36,216 documents. To refine the results and focus on social science literature, the database was limited to this field, resulting in 12,140 documents. Further narrowing down the search to the specified time frame of 2021 to 2023 led to the identification of 1,742 documents. To ensure language consistency, the results were then limited to English language publications, resulting in a final dataset of 1,626 documents. This methodological approach aimed to strike a balance between inclusivity and relevance, capturing a substantial body of literature while ensuring a focus on the social science domain and recent contributions. The next step involves a meticulous analysis and synthesis of these documents to extract meaningful insights into the evolving landscape of digital libraries and technology in public library services during the specified period.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Data Analysis and Result","content":"\u003cp\u003eMain Information\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows the spanning from 2021 to 2023, comprises 1,626 documents from various sources, including 753 journals and books. Despite a negative annual growth rate of -19.59%, the data presents a dynamic snapshot of recent contributions in the field. The documents have an average age of 1.14 years, reflecting the freshness of the content. The average citations per document stand at 2.365, indicating a moderate impact. The authors, totaling 3,892, contribute to a diverse collaborative landscape. While 385 authors produced single-authored documents, collaborative efforts are evident with an average of 2.71 co-authors per document. Approximately 15.31% of collaborations extend internationally, emphasizing a global scholarly network. Document types vary, with articles comprising the majority (1,064), followed by conference papers (243), and book Chaps. (120). The dataset also includes diverse formats such as books, editorials, reviews, and errata. Keyword analysis reveals 3,415 Keywords Plus and 4,468 Author\u0026apos;s Keywords, reflecting the richness of content. The dataset cites a substantial 63,333 references, underlining the interconnectedness of research in this domain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn essence, the dataset provides a multidimensional view of recent scholarly activity, showcasing collaboration, varied document types, and a wealth of keywords. The negative growth rate may suggest a contraction in output, but the dataset\u0026apos;s depth and breadth make it a valuable resource for understanding the evolving landscape of digital libraries and technology in public library services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnnual scientific production and citation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnual scientific production and citation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"5\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnual scientific production and citation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeanTCperArt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeanTCperYear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCitableYears\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e662.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e536.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e428.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents an overview of the annual scientific production and citation metrics for the years 2021 to 2023. In 2021, the mean total citations per article (MeanTCperArt) was 3.59, with a total of 662 articles contributing to a mean total citations per year (MeanTCperYear) of 1.20. The articles had an average of 3 citable years. This indicates a moderate level of impact and recognition for the scholarly output in 2021. Moving to 2022, there was a slight decrease in the mean total citations per article, dropping to 2.26. The total number of articles was 536, resulting in a MeanTCperYear of 1.13. The decrease in mean total citations per article suggests a potentially lower impact or visibility of the research output compared to the previous year. In 2023, the mean total citations per article further decreased to 0.6, with 428 articles contributing to a MeanTCperYear of 0.60. Notably, the citable years per article reduced to 1. This substantial drop in citation metrics may indicate a decline in the overall impact or attention garnered by the scholarly work in 2023.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the table provides insights into the annual trends of scientific production and citation impact, showcasing variations in the mean total citations per article and mean total citations per year across the three years. The declining trend in these metrics from 2021 to 2023 suggests a potential shift in the visibility and influence of the research output over this period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost Relevant Sources and Most Local Cited Sources\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Relevant Sources and Most Local Cited Sources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Relevant Sources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"12\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Local Cited Sources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArticles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArticles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVENKATESH V\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHAIR J F\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLIBRARY PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVARHEIM A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAUDUNSON R\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJAEGER P T\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePROCEEDINGS \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2021 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CONTEMPORARY SPORTS, TCS 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDAVIS F D\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePROCEEDINGS \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2021 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EDUCATION, ICISE-IE 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAABO S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFORNELL C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLIBRARY QUARTERLY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAJZEN I\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLENSTRA N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e highlights the most relevant and locally cited sources in the field of digital libraries and technology in public library services. \u0026quot;Public Library Quarterly\u0026quot; emerges as a prolific source with 71 associated articles, indicating its central role in scholarly discourse. Noteworthy local contributors include Venkatesh V, Hair J F, and Varheim A, with 104, 79, and 75 citations, respectively. The concentration of citations around specific authors underscores their substantial contributions, shaping the scholarly landscape. The diverse range of sources, from \u0026quot;Sustainability (Switzerland)\u0026quot; to conference proceedings, signifies a multidimensional exploration of digital technology in public libraries. This analysis provides valuable insights into both global and local influences, offering a comprehensive understanding of key sources and contributors in the field.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost Relevant Countries by Corresponding Author and Most Relevant Affiliations\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Relevant Countries by Corresponding Author and Most Relevant Affiliations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Relevant Countries by Corresponding Author\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"12\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Relevant Affiliations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArticles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSCP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMCP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFreq\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMCP_Ratio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAffiliation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArticles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e477\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e431\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.293\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.096\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e244\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e211\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.135\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCHINA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e192\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eINDIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.109\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMCMASTER UNIVERSITY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNITED KINGDOM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.236\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAUSTRALIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCANADA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eINDONESIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.321\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNIGERIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSOUTH AFRICA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e provides insights into the global landscape of digital libraries and technology in public library services, focusing on corresponding authors\u0026apos; countries and their affiliated institutions. Charles Sturt University stands out as a prominent affiliation with 53 articles, showcasing its significant role in scholarly contributions. The United States leads in the number of articles, with 477, and exhibits a diverse distribution among multiple affiliations. Notable institutions like the University of Tsukuba in Japan and the University of Washington in the USA feature prominently, each contributing 19 articles. The analysis reveals a dynamic collaboration network, with affiliations like Emporia State University in Indonesia and the University of the Punjab in Nigeria playing crucial roles. The prevalence of institutions from diverse countries underscores the global collaboration and varied perspectives in advancing digital technology in public libraries. This multifaceted analysis enriches our understanding of the key contributors and their affiliations in shaping the evolving landscape of digital libraries worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCountry Production and Most Cited Countries\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry Production and Most Cited Countries\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry Production\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"12\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Cited Countries\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eregion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFreq\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage Article Citations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e864\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e829\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCHINA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e617\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCHINA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eINDIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e211\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAUSTRALIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e219\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAUSTRALIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e191\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNITED KINGDOM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e167\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCROATIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCANADA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e147\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGERMANY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e114\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eINDONESIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCANADA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAKISTAN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTURKEY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e106\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMALAYSIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJORDAN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNIGERIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eINDIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e provides a comprehensive overview of country production and the most cited countries in the realm of digital libraries and technology in public library services. The USA emerges as the leading contributor in terms of the frequency of articles, with 864 articles, reflecting its substantial role in shaping the discourse. China follows closely with 617 articles, highlighting its growing influence in this domain. Australia, India, and the UK also feature prominently in the production of scholarly content. In terms of citations, the USA maintains its dominance with 829 total citations, indicating the high impact of its contributions. Australia and the United Kingdom follow with 219 and 180 citations, respectively. Croatia stands out with a remarkably high average article citation of 32.50, suggesting a concentrated impact in fewer articles. Germany and Turkey also demonstrate notable citation figures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis underscores the global reach of digital library research, with a diverse set of countries actively contributing and influencing the scholarly landscape. The varying citation metrics reveal not only the quantity of production but also the impact and resonance of the research from different regions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost Global Cited Documents\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Global Cited Documents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"5\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost Global Cited Documents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePaper\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDOI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal Citations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTC per Year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNormalized TC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHE W, 2021, INT J INF MANAGE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102287\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e220\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSZYMKOWIAK A, 2021, TECHNOL SOC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTARIQ E, 2022, INT J DATA NETW SCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.12.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMAGAZZINO C, 2021, UTIL POLICY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jup.2021.101256\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRAHMAT T, 2022, J EDU HEALTH PROMOTION\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4103/jehp.jehp_508_21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYU Y, 2021, J ENTERP INF MANAGE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/JEIM-03-2020-0101\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSAILER M, 2021, TEACH TEACH EDUC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHEIDARI A, 2022, SUSTAINABLE CITIES SOC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.scs.2022.104089\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWUEPPER D, 2021, FOOD POLICY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101995\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eALAJMI BM, 2021, PUBLIC LIBR Q\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/01616846.2020.1827618\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e highlights the most globally cited documents in the field of digital libraries and technology in public library services, offering insights into influential works that have made a substantial impact on scholarly discourse (Alajmi \u0026amp; Albudaiwi, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; He et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Heidari et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Magazzino et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mohebi et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Sailer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Szymkowiak et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Tariq et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wuepper et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). He\u0026apos;s paper, published in the International Journal of Information Management in 2021, stands out with an impressive total citation count of 220, translating to an exceptionally high yearly citation rate of 73.33 and a normalized citation of 61.32, indicating sustained and widespread influence over time. Other notable works include Szymkowiak et al.\u0026apos;s paper in Technology in Society, Tariq et al.\u0026apos;s contribution in the International Journal of Data Network Science, and Magazzino et al.\u0026apos;s study in Utilities Policy, all reflecting significant scholarly resonance with high citation rates. This analysis underscores the pivotal role of these documents in shaping the global landscape of digital library research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWordCloud\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e present a comprehensive overview of prominent terms in the realm of engineering education, emphasizing key themes and focus areas within the field. \u0026quot;Engineering education\u0026quot; itself emerges as the most frequently occurring term, underscoring its central role. The inclusion of terms like \u0026quot;students,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;teaching,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;information technology\u0026quot; reflects the multidimensional nature of educational discourse, highlighting the intersection of pedagogy and technological advancements. Noteworthy is the prevalence of terms related to contemporary challenges and trends, such as \u0026quot;e-learning,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;sustainability,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;Covid-19,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;digital transformation.\u0026quot; These indicate a keen interest in adapting educational practices to the digital age and addressing the impacts of global events on education. Additionally, terms like \u0026quot;libraries,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;digital libraries,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;information systems\u0026quot; signal the integration of information management and technology in educational settings. The mention of \u0026quot;artificial intelligence,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;big data,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;innovation\u0026quot; suggests a focus on cutting-edge technologies and their applications in engineering education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe frequency of terms like \u0026quot;female,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;male,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;adult\u0026quot; reflects an awareness of demographic dimensions, highlighting considerations related to gender and age in educational contexts. Overall, this analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the diverse and evolving landscape of engineering education, encompassing pedagogical methods, technological advancements, and socio-economic impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrend Topics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Trend Topics in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e sheds light on the temporal evolution of key terms in engineering education research, providing insights into emerging trends and areas of sustained focus. \u0026quot;Engineering education\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;students\u0026quot; maintain a high frequency across the years, with peak mentions in 2021 and a consistent presence in subsequent years. This suggests a continued emphasis on the core aspects of educational practices and the student experience. \u0026quot;Teaching\u0026quot; exhibits a robust frequency in 2021, aligning with a concentrated focus on pedagogical methods during that period. The term \u0026quot;information technology\u0026quot; sees increased prominence from 2021 to 2022, indicating a growing interest in the intersection of technology and education during this timeframe.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mention of \u0026quot;human\u0026quot; shows an upward trajectory, becoming particularly notable in 2022 and 2023. This trend may signify an increased focus on human-centric approaches, possibly related to teaching methodologies or the human experience within engineering education. \u0026quot;Article\u0026quot; as a term gains prominence, suggesting a broader discourse on academic publications and scholarly contributions in the field. Additionally, the emergence of terms like \u0026quot;human experiment\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;medical informatics\u0026quot; in later years indicates a potential expansion into experimental and technological dimensions within engineering education research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fluctuation in the term \u0026quot;performance\u0026quot; across the years hints at periodic considerations of educational outcomes and effectiveness in the field. Overall, this temporal analysis underscores the dynamic nature of engineering education research, reflecting evolving themes, technological integrations, and a holistic view of educational practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCountry Collaboration Map\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e reveals patterns in collaboration between countries, reflecting the interconnected nature of research endeavors across borders. The USA demonstrates a strong collaborative presence with various nations, notably the United Kingdom (13 collaborations), China (12), and Canada (8). These collaborations underscore the global nature of research efforts, fostering knowledge exchange and shared expertise. Several countries engage in diverse collaborations, such as China with Pakistan (7 collaborations), Indonesia with Malaysia (6), and China with Indonesia (5). These collaborations may signify joint research initiatives addressing common challenges or shared research interests. The analysis also highlights the USA\u0026apos;s extensive international collaborations, spanning regions from Europe to Asia and Africa. Noteworthy collaborations include with Ghana, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, and India, showcasing the broad spectrum of collaborative efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis interconnected global network reflects the collaborative and inclusive nature of contemporary research, emphasizing the importance of international partnerships in advancing scientific knowledge and addressing complex global challenges.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion and Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eNegative Annual Growth Rate: The dataset's negative annual growth rate of -19.59% raises questions about the factors contributing to this contraction. While it may suggest a decrease in scholarly output, other aspects such as shifts in research focus, publication trends, or external factors could influence this decline. Further investigation into the specific reasons behind the negative growth rate would provide valuable insights. The collaborative landscape, with an average of 2.71 co-authors per document and 15.31% international collaborations, indicates a vibrant and interconnected scholarly community. The diversity in collaboration suggests a global exchange of ideas, fostering a rich research environment. However, exploring the nature and impact of these collaborations, as well as potential challenges faced in international collaborations, could provide deeper insights. The dominance of articles and the richness in keywords (3,415 Keywords Plus and 4,468 Author's Keywords) reflect the diverse and multidimensional nature of research in digital libraries and technology in public library services. Examining the most recurrent keywords and their relationships could unveil emerging themes and areas of concentrated research interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe annual trends in scientific production and citation metrics reveal fluctuations in impact. The decline in mean total citations per article from 2021 to 2023 raises questions about the visibility and influence of research outputs. Investigating potential reasons for this trend, such as changes in publication venues or shifts in research focus, could provide valuable context. Identifying prolific sources and authors provides a snapshot of influential contributors. Exploring the content and impact of these sources could uncover trends and themes shaping the field. Additionally, understanding the collaboration patterns among these authors might offer insights into knowledge dissemination and scholarly influence. The global landscape analysis, encompassing corresponding authors, affiliations, and country production, emphasizes the widespread participation of countries and institutions in digital library research. Analyzing the collaboration dynamics among countries and institutions could unveil patterns of influence and shared research agendas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most globally cited documents offer a glimpse into seminal works that have significantly impacted the field. Delving into the content and methodologies of these papers could elucidate key contributions and their lasting influence. The WordCloud and Trend Topics provide a nuanced understanding of prevalent themes and evolving trends in engineering education research. Examining shifts in keyword frequencies over time and correlating them with broader educational developments could reveal the field's responsiveness to contemporary challenges. The network analysis of collaborations underscores the global and interconnected nature of research efforts. Analyzing the strength and impact of collaborations, as well as potential factors influencing collaboration patterns, could offer insights into the dynamics of knowledge exchange in the field.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, while the data provides a comprehensive overview of the landscape, a more in-depth investigation into specific trends, drivers of negative growth, and the qualitative aspects of influential works is needed for a nuanced understanding of the evolving landscape of digital libraries and technology in public library services and engineering education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the extensive data analysis spanning from 2021 to 2023 in the fields of digital libraries and technology in public library services and engineering education offers a multifaceted view of the scholarly landscape. Several key findings emerge, each contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics within these domains. The negative annual growth rate of -19.59% in the dataset raises a critical point for reflection. While it may indicate a contraction in scholarly output, further exploration is needed to uncover the underlying factors contributing to this trend. Shifts in research focus, changes in publication patterns, or external influences could all play a role, necessitating a deeper investigation to provide meaningful insights. The collaborative landscape, characterized by an average of 2.71 co-authors per document and 15.31% international collaborations, portrays a vibrant and globally connected scholarly community. This interconnectedness reflects the diverse perspectives and shared expertise contributing to research in these fields. However, understanding the nature and impact of these collaborations and potential challenges they face could offer valuable insights into the collaborative dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dominance of articles, rich keyword diversity, and a substantial number of citations underline the multidimensional nature of research in digital libraries and technology in public library services. Exploring the most recurrent keywords and their relationships could reveal emerging trends and thematic concentrations, contributing to a nuanced understanding of the field's evolution. The trends in scientific production and citations reveal fluctuations in impact over the years. The decline in mean total citations per article from 2021 to 2023 prompts further inquiry into the factors influencing the visibility and influence of research outputs during this period. Understanding these trends can guide future research directions and publication strategies. The identification of prolific sources, authors, and globally cited documents provides key touchpoints for recognizing influential contributions. A deeper exploration of the content and impact of these sources and documents is crucial for uncovering trends and seminal works shaping the scholarly landscape. The global landscape analysis, including corresponding authors, affiliations, and country production, emphasizes the widespread participation of countries and institutions in digital library research. Analyzing collaboration dynamics among countries and institutions will shed light on the patterns of influence and shared research agendas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn essence, this comprehensive analysis paints a rich tapestry of research in digital libraries, technology in public library services, and engineering education. The negative growth rate sparks curiosity, collaborative patterns weave a story of global connectivity, and trends in production and citations offer glimpses into the evolving nature of these scholarly pursuits. As we delve deeper into the intricacies of these findings, we open avenues for future exploration and a more nuanced understanding of the forces shaping these dynamic fields.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors Declare No Conflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlajmi, B. M., \u0026amp; Albudaiwi, D. (2021). Response to COVID-19 Pandemic: Where Do Public Libraries Stand? \u003cem\u003ePublic Library Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(6), 540\u0026ndash;556. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2020.1827618\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnte, L., Steinmetz, F., \u0026amp; Fiedler, I. (2021). Blockchain and energy: A bibliometric analysis and review. \u003cem\u003eRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e137\u003c/em\u003e(December 2020), 110597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110597\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorgman, C. L. (2000). Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Documentation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(4), 412\u0026ndash;430. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007121\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCandeias Fernandes, A. J., \u0026amp; Franco, M. (2022). The role of entrepreneurial resilience in forms of collaboration: a systematic literature review with bibliometric analyses. \u003cem\u003eEuroMed Journal of Business\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 752\u0026ndash;789. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-05-2021-0075\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChawla, R. N., \u0026amp; Goyal, P. (2022). Emerging trends in digital transformation: a bibliometric analysis. \u003cem\u003eBenchmarking\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1069\u0026ndash;1112. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2021-0009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosh, K., Ramingwong, S., \u0026amp; Ramingwong, L. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of Library Review trends. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Knowledge, Memory and Communication\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2022-0149\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, Y., Leng, Y., \u0026amp; Shan, B. (2022). Control Supply Chain Risks in Digital Transformation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational and End User Computing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1\u0026ndash;18. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.298680\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGomez, R., \u0026amp; Gould, E. (2010). The \u0026ldquo;cool factor\u0026rdquo; of public access to ICT: Users\u0026rsquo; perceptions of trust in libraries, telecentres and cybercaf\u0026eacute;s in developing countries. \u003cem\u003eInformation Technology and People\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 247\u0026ndash;264. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841011069158\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGupta, S., \u0026amp; Gul, S. (2022). Tracking the research trends in the library and information science: a case study of India. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Knowledge, Memory and Communication\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-11-2021-0184\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, W., Zhang, Z. (Justin), \u0026amp; Li, W. (2021). Information technology solutions, challenges, and suggestions for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Information Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(December 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102287\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeidari, A., Navimipour, N. J., \u0026amp; Unal, M. (2022). Applications of ML/DL in the management of smart cities and societies based on new trends in information technologies: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Cities and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e(February), 104089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104089\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeshmati, B., Hashempour, L., Saberi, M. K., Fattahi, A., \u0026amp; Sahebi, S. (2020). Global research trends of public libraries from 1968 to 2017: A bibliometric and visualization analysis. \u003cem\u003eWebology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 140\u0026ndash;157. https://doi.org/10.14704/WEB/V17I1/A213\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHettiarachchi, B. D., Seuring, S., \u0026amp; Brandenburg, M. (2022). Industry 4.0-driven operations and supply chains for the circular economy: a bibliometric analysis. \u003cem\u003eOperations Management Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 858\u0026ndash;878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-022-00275-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussain, A., Fatima, N., \u0026amp; Kumar, D. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of the \u0026ldquo;Electronic Library\u0026rdquo; journal (2000-2010). \u003cem\u003eWebology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKern, C. (2004). Radio-frequency-identification for security and media circulation in libraries. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Library\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 317\u0026ndash;324. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470410552947\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan, S. A., \u0026amp; Bhatti, R. (2017). Digital competencies for developing and managing digital libraries: An investigation from university librarians in Pakistan. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Library\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(3), 573\u0026ndash;597. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2016-0133\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhudhair, A., Li, H., Ren, G., \u0026amp; Liu, S. (2021). Towards future BIM technology innovations: A bibliometric analysis of the literature. \u003cem\u003eApplied Sciences (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031232\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLamboglia, R., Lavorato, D., Scornavacca, E., \u0026amp; Za, S. (2020). Exploring the relationship between audit and technology. A bibliometric analysis. \u003cem\u003eMeditari Accountancy Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1233\u0026ndash;1260. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2020-0836\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, S., \u0026amp; Yang, F. (2023). Green Library Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. \u003cem\u003ePublic Library Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(4), 424\u0026ndash;443. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2022.2116886\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLwoga, E. T. (2014). Integrating Web 2.0 into an academic library in Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Library\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 183\u0026ndash;202. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2012-0058\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagazzino, C., Mele, M., Morelli, G., \u0026amp; Schneider, N. (2021). The nexus between information technology and environmental pollution: Application of a new machine learning algorithm to OECD countries. \u003cem\u003eUtilities Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(August), 101256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2021.101256\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeschede, C., \u0026amp; Henkel, M. (2019). Library and information science and sustainable development: a structured literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Documentation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1356\u0026ndash;1369. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohebi, S., Parham, M., Sharifirad, G., \u0026amp; Gharlipour, Z. (2018). \u003cem\u003eSocial Support and Self ‑ Care Behavior Study\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eJanuary\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;6. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNielsen, E. K. (2008). Sharing information: Report on the LIBER library security network (LSN) since 2002. \u003cem\u003eLIBER Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 90\u0026ndash;100. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7910\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark, M.-K., \u0026amp; Kim, H.-J. (2011). A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature on Information Literacy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Korean Society for Information Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 53\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.3743/kosim.2011.28.2.053\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePhilosophy, L., \u0026amp; Harsanto, B. (2021). \u003cem\u003eDigitalCommons @ University of Nebraska - Lincoln Innovation Management in the Library : A Bibliometric Analysis Innovation Management in the Library : A Bibliometric Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eApril\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurnomo, A., Asitah, N., Firdausi, N., Putra, S. W., \u0026amp; Raya, M. K. F. (2021). A study of digital marketing research using bibliometric analysis. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of 2021 International Conference on Information Management and Technology, ICIMTech 2021\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(August), 807\u0026ndash;812. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech53080.2021.9535086\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurnomo, A., Septianto, A., Sutiksno, D. U., Hikmawan, M. I., \u0026amp; Kumalasari, R. D. (2020). Technopreneur publication: A bibliometric analysis (2000-2019). \u003cem\u003eProceedings of 2020 International Conference on Information Management and Technology, ICIMTech 2020\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAugust\u003c/em\u003e, 521\u0026ndash;526. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech50083.2020.9211111\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSailer, M., Murb\u0026ouml;ck, J., \u0026amp; Fischer, F. (2021). Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology? \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher \u003c/em\u003eEducation, \u003cem\u003e103\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaracevic, T., \u0026amp; Perk, L. J. (1973). Ascertaining activities in a subject area through bibliometric analysis. Application to library literature. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Society for Information Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 120\u0026ndash;134. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240207\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShahid, S. M. (2005). Use of RFID technology in libraries: A new approach to circulation, tracking, inventorying, and security of library materials. \u003cem\u003eLibrary Philosophy and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSikandar, H., Abbas, A. F., Khan, N., \u0026amp; Qureshi, M. I. (2022). Digital Technologies in Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(8), 34\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v18i08.31961\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSzymkowiak, A., Melović, B., Dabić, M., Jeganathan, K., \u0026amp; Kundi, G. S. (2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. \u003cem\u003eTechnology in Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(March). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTariq, E., Alshurideh, M., Akour, I., \u0026amp; Al-Hawary, S. (2022). The effect of digital marketing capabilities on organizational ambidexterity of the information technology sector. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Data and Network Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 401\u0026ndash;408. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.12.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThakur, K., \u0026amp; Kumar, V. (2022). Application of Text Mining Techniques on Scholarly Research Articles: Methods and Tools. \u003cem\u003eNew Review of Academic Librarianship\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 279\u0026ndash;302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2021.1918190\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThangavel, P., \u0026amp; Chandra, B. (2023). Two Decades of M-Commerce Consumer Research: A Bibliometric Analysis Using R Biblioshiny. \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511835\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, J., Lim, M. K., Wang, C., \u0026amp; Tseng, M. L. (2021). The evolution of the Internet of Things (IoT) over the past 20 years. \u003cem\u003eComputers and Industrial Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e155\u003c/em\u003e(June 2020), 107174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107174\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWuepper, D., Roleff, N., \u0026amp; Finger, R. (2021). Does it matter who advises farmers? Pest management choices with public and private extension. \u003cem\u003eFood Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e(September 2020), 101995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101995\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, Y., Huo, B., \u0026amp; Zhang, Z. (2021). Impact of information technology on supply chain integration and company performance: evidence from cross-border e-commerce companies in China. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Enterprise Information Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 460\u0026ndash;489. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-03-2020-0101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYuvaraj, M. (2016). Perception of cloud computing in developing countries: A case study of Indian academic libraries. \u003cem\u003eLibrary Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 33\u0026ndash;51. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-02-2015-0015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao, S. H. (2010). Information resourses security of library knowledge transfer under network enviromentpaper. \u003cem\u003e2010 International Conference on E-Product E-Service and E-Entertainment, ICEEE2010\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEEE.2010.5660412\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Digital Libraries, Technology, Public Library Services, Collaborative Landscape, Citation Metrics, Global Research Trends","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3829216/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3829216/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper meticulously reviews research spanning 2021\u0026ndash;2023 in digital public library technology. Analyzing 1,626 documents from 753 sources, it uncovers key trends. Despite a -19.59% annual growth rate, collaboration is robust, with 2.71 co-authors per document and 15.31% international collaborations. Fluctuating scientific production and citation metrics raise questions about research impact. Keyword analysis reveals multidimensionality, while identifying influential sources, authors, and globally cited documents. The global landscape analysis underscores broad participation, emphasizing connectivity and evolving research trends. This comprehensive analysis provides a nuanced understanding, guiding future exploration for deeper insights.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Bibliometric Analysis of the Intersection Between Digital Libraries and Technology in Public Library Services: A Scopus Review (2021-2023)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-04 06:20:36","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3829216/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0e9cd2c7-26e4-40b3-87e3-02964e66a654","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 4th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":27893526,"name":"Library Science"},{"id":27893527,"name":"Information Retrieval and Management"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-01-04T06:20:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-04 06:20:36","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3829216","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3829216","identity":"rs-3829216","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}