From Scholarly Communication Support to the Transformation of Library Research Support Services: A Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65150/EP-jsshrs/V2E8/2026-17Keywords:
Scholarly communication, Research support services, Digital transformation, Open science, Academic librariesAbstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine the transformation of university library research support services from scholarly communication support to integrated research support services within the context of open science. By combining bibliometric analysis with a scoping review, the study explores the intellectual evolution of the field, identifies major research trends and thematic developments, synthesizes emerging service models and institutional practices, and examines the drivers, barriers, and competencies associated with this transformation. The findings provide a comprehensive understanding of how academic libraries are repositioning their roles and offer practical implications for developing sustainable, research-oriented support services in higher education.
Design/methodology/approach – This study employed a bibliometric analysis combined with a scoping review using data retrieved from the Scopus database. An adapted PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework guided the identification of research trends and knowledge gaps. Bibliometric analyses were performed using the Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny package in R, while VOSviewer was used for network visualization. Furthermore, thematic qualitative content analysis was applied to the selected studies to synthesize research support service models, emerging practices, transformation pathways, and key developments in scholarly communication within the evolving open science and digital research ecosystem.
Findings – The findings indicate that research on the transformation of research support services in relation to scholarly communication has expanded substantially during the period 2016-2026, reflecting a shift from traditional library services toward an open research ecosystem. Bibliometric analysis identified major research themes, including open access, open science, research data management, scholarly communication, and scholarly publishing. It revealed the growing prominence of AI, research visibility, and research impact assessment. The scoping review further demonstrates that scholarly communication has evolved beyond publication support to encompass the entire research lifecycle, driving the transformation of academic libraries from information providers to strategic research partners. Academic libraries are increasingly engaged in research data management, open access publishing, bibliometric services, research capacity building, and digital research infrastructure management. Nevertheless, this transformation continues to face challenges related to institutional policies, digital infrastructure, financial and human resources, professional competencies, and traditional research evaluation systems, highlighting the need for coordinated institutional, technological, and workforce development to establish sustainable open research ecosystems.
Research limitations/implications – This study has several limitations. First, the analysis was limited to Scopus-indexed publications, potentially excluding relevant studies from other databases and grey literature. Second, the bibliometric findings reflect publication patterns rather than the effectiveness of research support services in practice. Despite these limitations, the study provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of scholarly communication support. It offers evidence to inform the development of research support services, professional competencies, and institutional Open Science strategies in academic libraries.
Practical implications – This study contributes to the systematic integration of research domains that have traditionally been examined separately, including open access, open science, research data management, scholarly communication, and research support services, into a unified analytical framework based on the research ecosystem perspective. The findings not only clarify major developmental trends, areas of consensus, and ongoing debates within the field but also identify important research gaps that warrant further investigation, particularly regarding the evaluation of research support services' effectiveness, the emerging role of Artificial Intelligence and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI/GenAI), and cross-national differences in research support practices.
Originality/value – This study is among the first to integrate bibliometric analysis with a scoping review to provide a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of research support services in academic libraries. It extends existing scholarship by conceptualizing research support services as an integrated research ecosystem rather than a collection of isolated scholarly communication activities. The study synthesizes evidence on the relationships among scholarly communication, open science, digital research infrastructure, research data management, and emerging technologies, offering a unified analytical framework for interpreting service transformation. The findings contribute to both theory and practice by informing future research, supporting strategic library planning, and guiding the development of sustainable research support services aligned with institutional research priorities and open science agendas.
References
1) A, S., Subramani, S., Yadav, U., Mushanga, K., & Amees, M. (2024). Assessing the use of scholarly communication platforms in Zambia. Libri, 74(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2023-0049
2) Abutayeh, N., Garcia-Orosa, B., & Al_Dwairi, K. M. (2021). Information discovery and scholar networking as modes of scholarly communication: A comparative study. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–18.
3) Adegoke, A. S., Abidoye, R. B., & Sunindijo, R. Y. (2024). A bibliometric analysis and scoping review of the critical success factors for residential building energy retrofitting. Buildings, 14(12), 3989. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123989
4) Altman, M., Cohen, P. N., & Polka, J. (2023). Interventions in scholarly communication: Design lessons from public health. First Monday, 28(8), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.52 10/fm.v28i8.12941
5) Balaji, B., & Dhanamjaya, M. (2019). Preprints in scholarly communication: Re-Imagining metrics and infrastructures. Publications, 7(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010006
6) Bordons, M., Moreno‐Solano, L., & González‐Albo, B. (2024). ORCID identifier adoption in Spanish scholarly communication: A macro and micro level perspective. Learned Publishing, 37(3), e1606. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1606
7) Bourke, T. (2022). Bibliographic control of research datasets: Reflections from the EUI library. JLIS.It, 13(1), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-12723
8) Brantley, S., Bruns, T. A., & Duffin, K. I. (2017). Librarians in transition: Scholarly communication support as a developing core competency. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 29(3), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2017.1340718
9) Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), 77–101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
10) Chen, H., Chiu, T.-H., & Cline, E. (2023). Academic libraries and research data management: A case study of Dataverse global adoption. Information Discovery and Delivery, 51(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-04-2022-0028
11) Codina, L., University of Chile, Pedraza Jiménez, R., Pompeu Fabra University, Cortiñas-Rovira, S., & Pompeu Fabra University. (2023). Scholarly communication: A discipline that should be promoted. Index Comunicacion, 13(01), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.33732/ixc/13/01Schola
12) Daga, E., Daquino, M., Fournier-S’niehotta, R., Guillotel-Nothmann, C., Scharnhorst, A. (2023). Documenting the research process. Opportunities and challenges for bibliometrics and information retrieval, in: BIR 2023: 13th International Workshop on Bibliometric-Enhanced Information Retrieval at ECIR 2023. Presented at the BIR 2023: 13th International Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval at ECIR 2023, pp. 4–20.
13) Dash, A.K. (2015). Scholarly communication, open access for researchers. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris.
14) Du, D., Ding, J., Chen, Y., & Liu, C. (2025). The evolution and development landscape of scholarly communication based on the analysis of published articles. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 57(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231196336
15) Ezema, I. J. (2021). Gold route open access journals in engineering and technology: Analysis of research impact and implications for scholarly communication. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (96), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl43
16) Féret, R., & Cros, M. (2019). The embedded research librarian: A project partner. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10304
17) Hey, T. (2022). Open science and big data in South Africa. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.982435
18) Imaduddin, M., & Eilks, I. (2024). A scoping review and bibliometric analysis of educational research on water literacy and water education. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 42, 101833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2024.101833
19) Kaiser, K. A., Urberg, M., Johnsson, M., Kemp, J., Meadows, A., & Paglione, L. (2021). An international, multistakeholder survey about metadata awareness, knowledge, and use in scholarly communications. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00133
20) Kingsley, D., Kennan, M. A., & Richardson, J. (2022). Scholarly communication competencies: An Analysis of confidence among Australasia library staff. College & Research Libraries, 83(6), 966–993. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.6.966
21) Laakso, M., & Ayeni, P. (2025). Why engage with transformative agreements in scholarly publishing? Analysis of customer and publisher press release statements. Journal of Documentation, 81(7), 420–442. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2025-0156
22) Liu, L., & Liu, W. (2023). The engagement of academic libraries in open science: A systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(3), 102711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102711
23) Marijanović, B., Petrić, T., Bugarinovski, Z. U., & Novosel, V. (2023). The role of academic libraries in scientific production evaluation: The experience of University of Zagreb, Croatia. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.13523
24) Maryati, I., Purwandari, B., Budi Santoso, H., & Budi, I. (2024). Improving research support services in indonesian academic libraries: A recommendation for business process reengineering implementation strategies. Library Leadership & Management, 37(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5860/llm.v37i3.7559
25) Maryl, M., Błaszczyńska, M., Szulińska, A., & Rams, P. (2020). The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities. F1000Research, 9, 1265. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26545.1
26) Mazov, N. A., & Gureyev, V. N. (2023). Open access bibliographic resources for maintaining a bibliographic database of research organization. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 50(3), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688223030115
27) Mullen, L. B. (2024). Open access, scholarly communication, and open science in psychology: An overview for researchers. Sage Open, 14(1_suppl), 1–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231205390
28) Nasirov, A., Jumanazarov, U., Yaxshiyev, A., Jumanazarov, U., Sultonov, O., Inatov, M., Matkarimov, N., & Matkarimov, I. (2025). Importance of Philological Studies in Library Collections. Indian Journal of Information Sources and Services, 15(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.51983/ijiss-2025.IJISS.15.2.27
29) Nazim, M., & Ashar, M. (2023). Factors influencing the adoption and use of open access scholarly communication among researchers in India. Online Information Review, 47(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2021-0265
30) Nemati-Anaraki, L., & Tavassoli-Farahi, M. (2018). Scholarly communication through institutional repositories: Proposing a practical model. Collection and Curation, 37(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-01-2018-002
31) Nicholas, D., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Xu, J., Świgoń, M., & Polezhaeva, T. (2020). A global questionnaire survey of the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers. Learned Publishing, 33(3), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1286
32) Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez‐Bravo, B., Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, C., Xu, J., Świgoń, M., & Herman, E. (2020). Does the scholarly communication system satisfy the beliefs and aspirations of new researchers? Summarizing the Harbingers research. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1284
33) Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
34) Papachristopoulos, L. (2024). Demystifying the way libraries support distance learning: A bibliometric analysis of scholarly communication in distance libraries. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 19(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-01-2024-0006
35) Peña, J. M. P. (2025). Model proposal of libraries functions to implement open science: Analysis from Latin American librarianship. IFLA Journal, 51(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352241276838
36) Sandy, H. M., Million, A. J., & Hudson-Vitale, C. (2020). Innovating support for research: The coalescence of scholarly communication? College & Research Libraries, 81(2), 193. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.2.193
37) Schmidt, B., Bertino, A., Beucke, D., Brinken, H., Jahn, N., Matthias, L., Mimkes, J., Müller, K., Orth, A., & Bargheer, M. (2018). Open science support as a portfolio of services and projects: From awareness to engagement. Publications, 6(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020027
38) Scotti, K. L., Jiao, C., Gainey, M. A., Bongiovanni, E. A., & Slayton, E. R. (2025). Charting open science landscapes: A systematized review of US academic libraries’ engagement in open research practices. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 51(3), 103054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103054
39) Shehata, A. M. K. (2019). Exploring the scholarly communication styles of Arab social science and humanities scholars. Learned Publishing, 32(4), 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1253
40) Shehata, A. M. K., & Eldakar, M. A. M. (2023). Scholarly communication practices and attitudes of Egyptian junior researchers: An exploratory study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(6), 102811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102811
41) Si, L., Zeng, Y., Guo, S., Zhuang, X. (2019). Investigation and analysis of research support services in academic libraries, The Electronic Library, 37(2), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2018-0125
42) Siyao, P. O., Whong, F. M., Martin-Yeboah, E., & Namamonde, A. (2017). Academic libraries in four Sub-Saharan Africa countries and their role in propagating open science. IFLA Journal, 43(3), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035217712263
43) Steele, C. (2014). Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Publishing and University Libraries. Plus Ça Change? Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 45(4), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.950042
44) Subaveerapandiyan, A., Tiwary, N., Kasonde, C. C., Ugwulebo, J. E., & Amees, M. (2025). Knowledge and experience of Zambian teaching faculties with scholarly communication and dissemination practices. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 74(7–8), 2150–2165. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-04-2023-0139
45) Tapfuma, M. M., & Hoskins, R. G. (2019). Open science disrupting the status quo in academic libraries: A perspective of Zimbabwe. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(4), 406–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.05.005
46) Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
47) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2021). Recommendation on Open science - Legal Affairs [WWW Document]. available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-open-science (accessed 6.2.26).
48) Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, Ij. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
49) Wilson, K., Neylon, C., Brookes-Kenworthy, C., Hosking, R., Huang, C.-K. (Karl), Montgomery, L., & Ozaygen, A. (2019). ‘Is the library open?’: Correlating unaffiliated access to academic libraries with open access support. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 29(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10298
50) Xu, Q., & Wang, Z. (2026). Digital publishing and open access in Library and Information Science (2020–2025): A bibliometric and science-mapping analysis. Journal of Information Science, (Early Access). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515261442148
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nhat Phan Truong (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
