Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Beyond the textbook and enhancing scholarly literacy through specialized courses: evaluating pre and post-test scores in scholarly publishing literacy of LIS master’s students
The investigation aims to evaluate the scholarly literacy of postgraduate Library and Information Science (LIS) students through pre- and post-test assessments. A unique course curriculum is developed to address the publishing literacy gaps specified by this experimental study. After estimating students’ foundational knowledge with a pre-test, a training module highlighting essential aspects of scholarly literacy is given. The effect of the curriculum is then evaluated utilizing a post-test, and the results are compared statistically. Seventy master’s students participated in the study, and their literacy was assessed using 46 multiple-choice questions (MCQs). The pre-test results indicated little knowledge. However, the post-test outcomes demonstrated substantial improvements. The results show how well the program has functioned to enhance students’ proficiency in scholarly publishing. This study makes a unique addition by methodically evaluating the effectiveness of a specialized course planned to address gaps in postgraduate Library and Information Science (LIS) students’ knowledge of scholarly publications in Bangladesh. With an evidence-based technique that may guide curriculum design and professional development programs that promote advanced academic and scholarly communication mastery, the results emphasize the requirement to integrate specialized literacy modules into LIS curricula. Education institutions looking to enhance the scholarly abilities of aspiring LIS professionals and other domains would find this study especially beneficial, as it will ultimately advance the field of scholarly publication literacy.
AdarkwahMAIslamAASchneiderK, et al. (2024) Are preprints a threat to the credibility and quality of artificial intelligence literature in the ChatGPT era? A scoping review and qualitative study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction1–14.
2.
AdedokunTOyetunde-JoshuaF (2024) Strengthening student-supervisor relationships: An examination of postgraduate students’ perspectives on supervisory supports. JMSP (Jurnal Manajemen dan Supervisi Pendidikan)8(2): 108–123.
3.
AllenLETaylorDM (2017) The role of the academic Library Information Specialist (LIS) in teaching and learning in the 21st century. Information Discovery and Delivery45(1): 1–9.
AugustDShanahanT (2017) Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Routledge.
7.
BeiterKD (2024) Open access ‘unaccomplished’ – reforming copyright or reconceptualizing science? Access to scholarly publications under a (reinterpreted) right to science. Nordic Journal of Human Rights42(3): 281–321.
8.
BergerM (2023) Academic librarians and pedagogical approaches to deterring predatory publishing. In:Predatory practices in scholarly publishing and knowledge sharing. Routledge, pp. 214–229.
9.
BladekM (2014) DORA: San Francisco declaration on research assessment (May 2013). College & Research Libraries News75(4): 191–196.
10.
BonnMFurloughM (2015) Getting the word out: Academic libraries as scholarly publishers. United States of America.
11.
BorregoÁ (2023) Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing36(3): 359–378.
12.
BornmannL (2015) Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics103(3): 1123–1144.
13.
BrinerRBWalsheND (2014) From passively received wisdom to actively constructed knowledge: Teaching systematic review skills as a foundation of evidence-based management. Academy of Management Learning & Education13(3): 415–432.
14.
BuchanLHejmadiMAbrahamsL, et al. (2020) A RCT for assessment of active human-centred learning finds teacher-centric non-human teaching of evolution optimal. npj Science of Learning5(1): 19.
Buitrago CiroJHernández PérezJ. (2024) ‘Pedagogical strategy for scholarly communication literacy and avoiding deceptive publishing practices’, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science56(4): 1028–1039.
17.
Buitrago CiroJ (2022) How are academic libraries in Spanish-speaking Latin America responding to new models of scholarly communication and predatory publishing?Journal of Librarianship and Information Science54(3): 373–388.
18.
CaffreyCLeeHWithornT, et al. (2023) Library instruction and information literacy 2022. Reference Services Review51(3/4): 319–396.
19.
Calzada PradoJMarzalMÁ (2013) Incorporating data literacy into information literacy programs: Core competencies and contents. Libri63(2): 123–134.
20.
CarlssonU (2019) Media and information literacy: field of knowledge, concepts and history. In: Understanding Media and Information Literacy (MIL) in the Digital Age: A Question of Democracy. Gothenburg: Department of Journalism, Media and Communication (JMG), University of Gothenburg, pp. 37–55.
21.
ChanC (2019) Bringing them up to speed: Teaching scholarly communication to new graduate students. LOEX Quarterly45(4): 3.
22.
ChaleplioglouAKoulourisA (2023) Preprint paper platforms in the academic scholarly communication environment. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science55(1): 43–56.
23.
ChanLLoizidesF (eds) (2017) Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
24.
ChizwinaSMoyoM (eds) (2024) Examining information literacy in academic libraries. IGI Global.
25.
ChowdhuryM (2018) Emphasizing morals, values, ethics, and character education in science education and science teaching. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences4(2): 1–16.
26.
CrampsieCNevilleTHenryD (2020) Academic librarian publishing productivity: An analysis of skills and behaviors leading to success. College & Research Libraries81(2): 248.
27.
CoxE (2020) Open access article processing charge as epistemic injustice in the global south. Master’s thesis, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
28.
Davis-KahlS (2012) Engaging undergraduates in scholarly communication: Outreach, education, and advocacy. College & Research Libraries News73(4): 212–222.
29.
Davis-KahlSHensleyMK (2013) Common ground at the nexus of information literacy and scholarly communication. Association of College & Research Libraries, Chicago.
30.
da SilvaJAT (2021) Challenges that early career researchers face in academic research and publishing: Pre- and post-COVID-19 perspectives. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal9(1): 77–106.
31.
DiekemaARHopkinsEBSPattersonB, et al. (2019) Using information practices of nurses to reform information literacy instruction in baccalaureate nursing programs. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice14(4): 72–102.
32.
DonlanRStanislawSFernandezM (2017) The future of information literacy in the library: An example of librarian/ publisher collaboration. The Serials Librarian72(1–4): 91–94.
33.
DowneyA (2016) Critical Information Literacy: Foundations, Inspiration, and Ideas. Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.
34.
DrekerMRDowneyKJ (eds) (2024) Building Your Academic Research Digital Identity: A Step-Wise Guide to Cultivating Your Academic Research Career Online. Springer Nature.
35.
EnslinPHedgeN (2018) On peer review as the ‘gold standard’ in measuring research excellence: From secrecy to openness?Journal of Philosophy of Education52(3): 379–396.
36.
FongBLWangMWhiteK, et al. (2016) Assessing and serving the workshop needs of graduate students. The Journal of Academic Librarianship42(5): 569–580.
37.
FrerichsW (2013) Ways of experiencing information literacy: Making the case for a relational approach (Chandos Information Professional Series). The Australian Library Journal62(4): 335.
38.
FyfeACoateKCurryS, et al. (2017a) Academic Publishing: A History of the Relationship Between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research. St Andrews, UK: University of St Andrews.
39.
FyfeAMoxhamNMcDougall-WatersJ, et al. (2017b) A History of Scientific Journals. London: UCL Press.
40.
GelfandJPalmerC (2013) Weaving scholarly communication and information literacy: Strategies for incorporating both threads in academic library outreach. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7s43t75f (accessed 22 August 2025).
41.
GarnerSDMcClureJD (eds) (2006) High-level colloquium on information literacy and lifelong learning: Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Alexandria, Egypt. UNESCO.
42.
GerashchenkoD (2023) Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders’ dishonest behavior?Accountability in Research30(8): 743–765.
43.
GasparyanAYYessirkepovMVoronovAA, et al. (2019) Comprehensive approach to open access publishing: Platforms and tools. Journal of Korean Medical Science34(27): e184.
44.
GastonPL (2023) Higher education accreditation: How it’s changing, why it must. Taylor & Francis.
45.
GilmanI (2013) Scholarly communication for credit: Integrating publishing education into undergraduate curriculum. In: Common Ground at the Nexus of Information Literacy and Scholarly Communication. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, pp. 153–162.
46.
HamiltonDGFraserHHoekstraR, et al. (2020) Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review. eLife9: e62529.
47.
HausteinSCostasRLarivièreV (2015) Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One10(3): e0120495.
48.
HardenRM (2007) Outcome-based education: The future is today. Medical Teacher29(7): 625–629.
49.
HeadAJVan HoeckMEschlerJ, et al. (2013) What information competencies matter in today’s workplace?Library and Information Research37(114): 74–104.
50.
HicksDWoutersPWaltmanL, et al. (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature520(7548): 429–431.
51.
HillmanJRBaydounE (2019) Quality assurance and relevance in academia: A review. In: Major Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Arab world: Quality Assurance and Relevance. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 13–68.
52.
InceSHoadleyCKirschnerPA (2019) The role of libraries in teaching doctoral students to become information-literate researchers: A review of existing practices and recommendations for the future. Information and Learning Sciences120(3/4): 158–172.
HortaHSantosJM (2016) An instrument to measure individuals’ research agenda setting: The multi-dimensional research agendas inventory. Scientometrics108: 1243–1265.
55.
HylandK (2016) Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge.
56.
JanelliMLipnevichAA (2021) Effects of pre-tests and feedback on performance outcomes and persistence in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education161: 104076.
57.
JohnsonAMSprolesCDetmeringR (2011) Library instruction and information literacy 2010. Reference Services Review39(4): 551–627.
58.
JonesLSBlackLCBrightL, et al. (2006) An undergraduate course on publishing in neuroscience. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education4(2): A60. PMC3592632.
59.
JulienHBarkerS (2009) How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library & Information Science Research31(1): 12–17.
60.
KellyJSadeghiehTAdeliK (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. Ejifcc25(3): 227.
61.
KhumaloMA (2025) Enhancing digital literacy for learners in inclusive primary and secondary education in Lesotho. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy6(2): 12–21.
62.
Klain-GabbayLShohamS (2018) Scholarly communication and the academic library: Perceptions and recent developments. In: A Complex Systems Perspective of Communication from Cells to Societies: pp. 1–22.
63.
KlebelTRoss-HellauerT (2023) The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing. Quantitative Science Studies4(1): 22–43.
64.
KoehlerJJMnookinJLSaksMJ (2023) The scientific reinvention of forensic science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(41): e2301840120.
65.
KuhGDKinzieJLBuckleyJA, et al. (2006) What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature?Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
66.
KuhlthauCC (2004) Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information services. Vol. 2. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
67.
LarivièreVHausteinSMongeonP (2015) The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PloS One10(6): e0127502.
68.
LeeA (2019) Successful Research Supervision: Advising Students Doing Research. London: Routledge.
69.
LeeD (2024) Exploring the determinants of research performance for early-career researchers: A literature review. Scientometrics129(1): 181–235.
70.
LiangWLiuSZhaoC (2021) Impact of student-supervisor relationship on postgraduate students’ subjective well-being: A study based on longitudinal data in China. Higher Education82: 273–305.
71.
MakiPL (2023) Assessing for Learning: Building a Sustainable Commitment Across the Institution. London: Routledge.
72.
MathewRPPatelV (2022) Predatory journals—the power of the predator versus the integrity of the honest. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology51(5): 740–746.
73.
Mercer-MapstoneLKuchelL (2017) Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B7(2): 181–201.
74.
McClellanSDetmeringRMartinezG, et al. (2017) Raising the library’s impact factor: A case study in scholarly publishing literacy for graduate students. Portal: Libraries and the Academy17(3): 543–568.
75.
MilesRAPriceR (2023) Using Altmetric Data Responsibly: A Guide to Interpretation and Good Practice.
76.
MilliganI (2022) The Transformation of Historical Research in the Digital Age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
77.
MooreMMartinsonMLNuriusPS, et al. (2018) Transdisciplinarity in research: Perspectives of early career faculty. Research on Social Work Practice28(3): 254–264.
78.
MoormanGPennellA (2017) Plagiarism in the digital age: Using a process writing model to enhance integrity in the classroom. Literacy Today35(3): 14–15.
79.
MorseJMBarrettMMayanM, et al. (2002) Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods1(2): 13–22.
80.
MorrisonHDesautelsL (2016) Open access, copyright and licensing: basics for open access publishers. Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports6(1): 1.
81.
MorrowL (2022) Beyond the Traditional: Academic Integrity in Canadian Librarianship. In: Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 449–464.
MullenLB (2024) Open access, scholarly communication, and open science in psychology: An overview for researchers. Sage Open14(1 Suppl): 123.
84.
MullenLB (2019) Scholarly Communication and Open Access in Psychology: Current Considerations for Researchers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
85.
MunafòMRNosekBABishopDV, et al. (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour1(1): 0021.
86.
NicholasDWatkinsonABoukacem-ZeghmouriC, et al. (2017) Early career researchers: Scholarly behaviour and the prospect of change. Learned Publishing30(2): 157–166
87.
Noakhali Science and Technology University (2024) Available at: https://nstu.edu.bd/ (accessed 27 December 2023).
OakleafM (2011) Are they learning? Are we? Learning outcomes and the academic library. The Library Quarterly81(1): 61–82.
90.
ObinyanOOTellaA (2022) Nigerian LIS academic and scholarly publishing experience: challenges and the way forward. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology59(1): 235–241.
91.
OnwuegbuzieAJ (2016) A step-by-step guide to publishing journal articles and strategies for securing impactful publications. Research in the Schools23(1): 1–34.
92.
O’SullivanLMaLDoranP (2021) An overview of post-publication peer review. Scholarly Assessment Reports3(1): 1–11.
PintoMGarcia-MarcoJCaballeroD, et al. (2024) Assessing information, media and data literacy in academic libraries: Approaches and challenges in the research literature on the topic. The Journal of Academic Librarianship50(5): 102920.
95.
PiranMJTranNH (2024) Enhancing research methodology and academic publishing: A structured framework for quality and integrity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05683.
96.
PiwowarHPriemJLarivièreV, et al. (2018) The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ6: e4375.
97.
RaneNLChoudharySRaneJ (2024) How to Publish Academic Books: A Guide to Publishing Monographs, Edited Volumes, Textbooks, and Theses. Deep Science Publishing.
98.
RaoNJ (2020) Outcome-based education: An outline. Higher Education for the Future7(1): 5–21.
99.
RaywardWB (2014) The history and evolution of scholarly communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology48(1): 3–48.
100.
ReedM (2018) Creating learning opportunities in open education: An exploration of the intersections of information literacy and scholarly communication. Available at: https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-ir/handle/10106/27655 (accessed 22 August 2025).
RiegerOYSchonfeldR (2023) Common scholarly communication infrastructure landscape review. Ithaka S+R, 24.
103.
RiehleCF (2014) Collaborators in Course Design: A Librarian and Publisher at the Intersection of Information Literacy and Scholarly Communication. In 2014 LOEX Conference Proceedings.
104.
RingoDS (2025) When relationships make a difference! Supervisor support and PhD students’ academic performance in the journey: the moderating effect of supervisor-student relationship quality. Cogent Education12(1): 2479403.
105.
Ross-HellauerTDeppeASchmidtB (2017) Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PloS One12(12): e0189311.
106.
SchachterD (2019) Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice: Critical Information Literacy Teaching in Canadian Higher Education. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/36071 (accessed 22 August 2025).
107.
SchmidSL (2017) Five years post-DORA: Promoting best practices for research assessment. Molecular Biology of the Cell28(22): 2941–2944.
108.
SeverinAEggerMEveMP, et al. (2020) Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review. F1000Research7: 1925.
109.
ShenC (2020) A study of three alternative open access publishing models.
110.
SheppardNENephinE (2014) Digital literacy in practice: Developing an interactive and accessible open educational resource based on the SCONUL Seven Pillars of Information Literacy. SCONUL Focus60.
111.
ShivarajuPTManuGVinayaM, et al. (2017) Evaluating the effectiveness of pre-and post-test model of learning in a medical school. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology7(9): 947.
112.
SikoraLFournierKRebnerJ (2019) Exploring the impact of individualized research consultations using pre and posttesting in an academic library: a mixed methods study. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice14(1): 2–21.
113.
SilerK (2020) Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology71(11): 1386–1401.
114.
SotiriadouPLoganDDalyA, et al. (2020) The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education45(11): 2132–2148.
115.
TellaAOnyanchaB (2021) Scholarly publishing experience of postgraduate students in Nigerian universities. Accountability in Research28(7): 395–427.
116.
ThelwallM (2021) Measuring societal impacts of research with altmetrics? Common problems and mistakes. Journal of Economic Surveys35(5): 1302–1314.
117.
TennantJDuganJGraziotinD, et al. (2017) A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research6: 1151.
118.
TennantJPWaldnerFJacquesDC, et al. (2016) The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research5: 632.
119.
TownsendLHoferARLin HanickS, et al. (2016) Identifying threshold concepts for information literacy: A Delphi study. Communications in Information Literacy10(1): 1.
120.
UNESCO C (2013) Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: Country Readiness and Competencies.
121.
University Grants Commission of Bangladesh (2023) 48th UGC annual report. Available at: www.ugc.gov.bd/ (accessed 11 October 2023).
122.
WagerEKleinertS (2013) Why do we need international standards on responsible research publication for authors and editors?Journal of Global Health3(2): 020301.
123.
WallaceMWrayA (2021) Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates. London: Sage.
124.
WhiteEKingL (2020) Conceptual framework for scholarly communication guidance by the academic library: The case of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science52(4): 1137–1151.
125.
WhitworthA (2020) Mapping information landscapes: New methods for exploring the development and teaching of information literacy. Facet Publishing.
126.
WilsdonJ (2016) The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications
127.
WithornTCaffreyCMesser KimmittJ, et al. (2019) Library instruction and information literacy 2018. Reference Services Review47(4): 363–447.
128.
WoutersPThelwallMKoushaK, et al. (2015) The metric tide: Literature review. Supplementary report I to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management.
129.
ZerkeeJThiedeM (2019) An active learning approach to copyright essentials. In: Copyright Conversations: Rights Literacy in a Digital World. pp. 141–158.
130.
ZhaoL (2014) Riding the wave of open access: Providing library research support for scholarly publishing literacy. Australian Academic & Research Libraries45(1): 3–18.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
