Effects of big data analytics on university libraries: A systematic literature review of impact factor articles
Abstract
The study aimed to identify the effects of big data analytics (BDA) on university libraries, to reveal the challenges associated with the adoption of BDA, and to develop a framework for the implementation of BDA in university libraries. The research methodology of “Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” (PRISMA) was applied to carry out the study. The 26 most relevant impact factor articles explored through world’s renowned 18 databases were selected to carry out the study. Findings manifested that big data analytics was a game changer for university libraries. BDA transformed library services, and enhanced information services. The study also revealed that awareness and expertise, technical issues, and data integrity and security were the major challenges that causes barriers for the adoption of BDA based services in university libraries. Based on the study’s findings, a framework has been developed for the adoption of big data analytics in university libraries. It is the first systematic review on the effects of big data analytics on university libraries based upon the articles published in worldwide impact factor journals. It has provided theoretical, practical, and social implications through the development of framework to adopt big data analytics in university libraries and to cope with associated challenges efficiently.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223 · cited 1× · see citing works
““PRISMA is used for reporting of review, evaluating randomized trails, but it can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic review” (Moher et al., 2015: 1).”
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Aldraiweesh, A. A., Alturki, U., Alamri, M., Bin Saud, M. S., Kamin, Y. B., Aljeraiwi, A. A., & Alhamed, O. A. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2906668 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ayoib, A., Ismail, M. A., & Abdullah, N. (2026) · Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science · doi:10.22452/mjlis.vol31no1.2
- Authors
- Shahzad, K., Khan, S. A., & Iqbal, A.
- Affiliations
- Government College University, Lahore (PK)
- Islamia University of Bahawalpur (PK)
- Prince Sultan University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Shahzad, Khurram
- Venue
- Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-06-25
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-59
- ISSN
- 0022-2232 (ISSN-L)
- 0961-0006
- 1741-6477
- OpenAlex
- W4400004295
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 0.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- prince sultan university
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Big Data and Business Intelligence
- Keywords
- big data analytics, academic libraries, library services, information services, technology adoption, barriers to adoption, data integrity, data security, adoption framework
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
