Digital Marketing of Libraries and Information Centers: A Bibliometric Study, 2015–2025

This study maps the global research literature on the digital marketing of libraries and information centers published between 2015 and 2025. Records were retrieved from the Dimensions database using a Boolean strategy restricted to the title and abstract, and were then screened in three stages to confirm that the library or information center was the object of the marketing activity described. The procedure yielded an analytical corpus of 135 records, of which 117 (86.7%) carry the ANZSRC Field of Research code for Library and Information Studies. Output grew from 1 record in 2015 to 32 in 2025, with 76 of the 135 records (56.3%) appearing in the final three years. The corpus attracted 899 citations in total, with an h-index of 14. Field-normalized impact was assessed using the Field Citation Ratio (FCR), which compares an article with others of comparable age and subject field. An FCR value was available for 96 of the 135 records. For publication years 2015 to 2022, for which a citation window of at least three years is available, the geometric mean of non-zero FCR values was 4.21 and the median of all available values was 2.14 (interquartile range 0.7–8.46); both exceed the field benchmark of 1.00, indicating above-average citation performance. The Relative Citation Ratio was not available for any record in the corpus, since Dimensions computes it only for PubMed-indexed publications; the indicator is therefore inapplicable to library and information science and is not reported. Declining values of the proportion-cited series in the terminal years are shown to be an artifact of the citation window rather than evidence of diminishing research influence. Collaboration is markedly fragmented: 268 authors form 123 disconnected components, the largest containing only 10 authors, and 3 of the 86 records with standardized affiliation data (3.5%) involve more than one country. A sensitivity analysis bounding the effect of the 49 records lacking affiliation data places international collaboration between 2.2% and 24.4% of the corpus, so fragmentation is the conclusion the data support across that range.