1. Introduction and Evolution of Lexicographic Resources

Reference and information sources are essential for academic work, daily queries, and determining precise meanings of terms. Dictionaries have traditionally served as tools for understanding the etymology, meaning, history, and usage of words or terms.
Generally, dictionaries are categorised into four types: general, special, subject, and translation dictionaries. They provide information on spelling, meaning, etymology, usage, pronunciation, synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms. Other related terms include glossaries, thesauruses, vocabularies, lexicons, and concordances, each with specific meanings and purposes in particular contexts. In library and information science (LIS), dictionaries play a key role in disseminating definitions of terms. Entries are typically arranged in alphabetical order, though classified arrangements are also used.
Historical development of lexicography can be traced in ancient Indian knowledge Systems. The Nighantu and Nirukta can be considered as the ancient Indian lexicographic contributions. Nighantu is a glossary of Vedic words and Nirukta is the formal commentary on the Nighantu and Nirukta is recognised as one of the six Vedangas and it can be considered as oldest Indian treatise on philosophy, etymology and semantics. Nighantu and Nirukta helped to understand the Vedic complex terms and meanings. Earlier lexicographic contributions were not alphabetically arranged, these were created in stanzas or in the poetic form and helped to remember, recite and to understand the meaning of ancient Indian sacred literature.
In the LIS context Dr. S. R. Ranganathan may be considered as the first person in the field of LIS lexicography in India, who compiled English to Sanskrit and Sanskrit to English technical terms and appeared in the form of appendices of his contributions.

1.1 Bibliometric Analysis in Lexicography

As lexicography matures into a distinct academic discipline, scholarly output is increasingly evaluated through quantitative and bibliometric methods. Analysing publication data enables researchers to: (a) track the emergence and decline of specific lexicographic subfields, (b) identify innovative research directions prompted by pioneering studies or novel dictionary formats, and (c) map intellectual networks and schools of thought centred around influential scholars. Recent bibliometric investigations, such as the comprehensive analysis of the International Journal of Lexicography, demonstrate that lexicography has firmly established itself as an independent field of study [7] . Conducting rigorous bibliometric analyses, however, requires a thorough review of preceding studies to contextualise findings, identify research gaps, and establish scholarly relevance.

2. Prior Research and Identified Gaps

Several foundational bibliometric studies have examined dictionary publications across diverse linguistic and disciplinary domains. Sharma and Mall [8] analyzed 73 Sanskrit polyglot dictionaries published between 1798 and 1999, mapping their historical significance and publication trends. Similarly, Sharma [9] investigated bilingual Sanskrit English and English Sanskrit dictionaries, identifying the 1951–1975 period as the most productive, with 18 titles published. Within the library and information science (LIS) field, Sharma [10] conducted a bibliometric review of 53 LIS dictionaries published from 1950 to 2010, highlighting prolific contributors such as Pandey S.K., Sharma, P.N. Gour, and P.S. Kawatra, each authoring three dictionaries. Despite these valuable contributions, a critical review of the literature reveals a notable scarcity of bibliometric research on the availability and publication patterns of LIS dictionaries in India. Addressing this gap is essential to better support scholars, practitioners, and students in the field.

2.1 Contemporary Initiatives and Digital Transition

Recognising the strategic importance of specialised reference works, Indian governmental bodies, including the Ministry of Education and the Department of Official Languages [11] (under the Ministry of Home Affairs), have launched initiatives to develop comprehensive dictionaries that translate technical LIS terminology from English to Hindi, complete with contextual descriptions. This effort aligns with a broader paradigm shift toward digital and electronic media. Contemporary LIS dictionaries are increasingly accessible through dedicated web portals and digital platforms, such as https://shabd.education.gov.in and https:// cstt.education.gov.in/terminology-search, [12, 13] which enable users to efficiently search and retrieve domain-specific terms. Sustaining and expanding these initiatives will be crucial for meeting the evolving needs of the LIS community, ensuring equitable access to authoritative lexical resources, and fostering future bibliometric and lexicographic research.

3. Objectives

The primary objective of the present study is to collect, compile, and analyse data on the availability, distribution, and characteristics of dictionaries in the field of library and information science (LIS), with a specific focus on publications from India.
The specific objectives are outlined below:
1. To analyse author/editor/collaborator/compiler-wise patterns of LIS dictionaries: This involves identifying the most prolific contributors, distinguishing between single authored and multi-authored works, and understanding the role of compilers and editors versus original authors.
2. To identify the authorship pattern distribution of LIS dictionaries: This objective examines whether LIS dictionaries are predominantly produced by individual authors, institutional bodies, editorial committees, or commercial publishers. It also explores collaborative trends, such as joint authorship and institutional contributions.
3. To identify key terms for information retrieval: By analysing the dictionaries, the study aims to extract and list the most frequently occurring headwords, subject descriptors, and terminological clusters. This helps in understanding the core vocabulary of LIS and assists in improving indexing and search strategies in library databases.
4. To identify subject-wise, place-wise, year-wise, and volume wise dictionaries of LIS:

• Subject-wise: Categorisation based on thematic areas such as cataloguing, classification, information technology, research methods, etc.
• Place-wise: Geographical distribution of publishers (cities/states in India).
• Year-wise: Chronological trends in dictionary publication from 1960 to 2022.
• Volume-wise: Number of volumes per dictionary (single-volume vs. multi-volume sets).

5. To highlight recent trends in the availability of LIS dictionaries: This includes observing shifts from print to digital formats, the emergence of open-access and online dictionaries, changes in publishing frequency, language preferences, and the impact of institutional repositories and ecommerce platforms on dictionary dissemination.

4. Scope of the Study

The scope of the present study is defined by the following parameters:

• Geographical Limitation: Only dictionaries published in India or by Indian publishers are included. Publications from other countries are excluded.
• Language Coverage: The study covers dictionaries published in English, Hindi, and other Indian languages (such as Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, etc.). Purely foreign-language dictionaries (e.g., only French or German) without an Indian publication context are excluded.
• Time Frame: The study covers publications released between 1960 and 2022, capturing over six decades of dictionary production in LIS.
• Type of Sources Included: The study includes general LIS dictionaries, special dictionaries (e.g., glossary of cataloguing terms), and encyclopedic dictionaries (which combine dictionary and encyclopedia features). Standalone encyclopedias (without dictionary structure) are excluded.
• Format: Both print and online dictionaries are included, provided they are publicly available or accessible through institutional repositories
• Sample Size: The study is based on 80 dictionaries. While this is not an exhaustive list of all LIS dictionaries published in India, the authors have made substantial efforts to collect data from multiple authentic sources to ensure representativeness.
• Limitation Statement: The study does not claim to be comprehensive in terms of total global or even total Indian LIS dictionary production. It acknowledges that some rare, out-of-print, or regional language dictionaries may not have been captured. However, the findings are indicative of broader trends

5. Sources of Data

The present study draws upon a diverse range of print, electronic, and online sources to ensure comprehensive coverage and authenticity of data pertaining to 80 library and information science dictionaries published in India. Data collection involved a multi-pronged strategy, beginning with systematic searches across major library catalogues and bibliographic databases. Specifically, Indcat (the Indian Union Catalogue), WorldCat, and the Indian National Bibliography Online served as primary sources for identifying dictionary holdings across Indian libraries and verifying publication details. Additionally, the Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) of numerous university and college libraries, including those of the University of Delhi, the University of Calcutta, the University of Mumbai, Banaras Hindu University, and the University of Madras, were consulted to locate both widely available and rare dictionary titles.
Beyond library catalogues, the study extensively utilised publisher websites and e-commerce platforms to capture dictionaries that may not have been systematically indexed in traditional bibliographic databases. Websites of Indian publishers specialising in library and information science, such as Ess Ess Publications, Shree Publishers, and KBD Publications, were searched directly. E-commerce platforms, including Amazon India and Google Books, were also explored for both print and digital dictionary listings, with metadata and previews cross-checked for accuracy. Furthermore, institutional and government repositories played a crucial role, particularly for dictionaries and glossaries developed in Hindi and other Indian languages. The Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology (CSTT), the eGyanKosh digital repository of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), and the Inflibnet network (including Shodhganga) provided access to numerous works on terminology that might otherwise fall outside the scope of commercial or library catalogues. Physical library collections were not neglected; the National Library of India (Kolkata), Delhi Public Library, andvarious university departmental libraries of library and information science were visited or accessed remotely to verify print copies. Finally, every dictionary entry was authenticated by cross verifying metadata such as author, year, publisher, language, and edition across at least two independent sources. In cases of discrepancy, the physical copy (where accessible) or a confirmed library holding record was treated as the final authority, thereby ensuring the reliability of the data set used for subsequent analysis.

6. Methodology

A total of 80 dictionaries, glossaries, and encyclopedic dictionaries in the field of library and information science (LIS), published in India between 1960 and 2022, formed the sample for the present study. The selection process was purposive yet exhaustive within the defined scope: only works published in India or by Indian publishers, available in English, Hindi, or other Indian languages, and explicitly classified as LIS dictionaries or terminological compilations were included. The data collection procedure unfolded in four sequential phases: identification, retrieval, screening, and finalization. During the identification phase, a combination of search terms including “dictionary,” “glossary,” “lexicon,” “terminology,” “shabdawali,” and “paribhashik shabd” (the latter two being Hindi equivalents) was employed across the databases and catalogues. In the retrieval phase, full bibliographic records were downloaded or manually transcribed. The screening phase involved the removal of duplicate entries, non-LIS titles, and works not meeting the Indian publication criterion, after which the finalization phase yielded a unique set of 80 dictionaries for detailed analysis.
To analyse the collected data, bibliometric techniques were adopted, as these are well suited for the quantitative study of published literature and bibliographical units. Specifically, the data were examined according to the study objectives through five analytical lenses: author wise, subject wise, publisher wise, year wise, and volume wise. Author wise analysis involved counting the frequencies of individual authors, editors, compilers, and institutional contributors, and distinguishing between single and multi authored works. Subject wise classification was performed using standard LIS subject headings (e.g., Classification, Cataloguing, Reference Services, Information Technology, Research Methodology) to group dictionaries by thematic focus. Publisherwise analysis ranked publishers by the number of dictionaries produced, thereby revealing dominant publishing entities in the Indian LIS dictionary landscape. The year wise distribution mapped the chronological spread of publications across the 1960–2022 period, enabling identification of decadal trends, publication peaks, and notable gaps. Volume wise analysis simply distinguished between single volume and multi volume dictionaries and, where applicable, recorded page length ranges. All data were systematically tabulated using Microsoft Excel, and frequency distributions, percentages, and cumulative totals were calculated. Trends were visualised through bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts, with basic statistical measures such as mean, median, and range applied where appropriate (for example, calculating the average number of dictionaries per decade). It is important to note that all findings and interpretations are strictly limited to the 80 dictionaries studied, and no claims of generalisation beyond this sample are made without explicit acknowledgement of this limitation. Incomplete or undated entries, when encountered, were excluded from specific analyses that required those data points, ensuring the integrity of the statistical results.

7. Results and Analysis

Data were systematically collected from multiple bibliographic sources and categorised to examine publication trends, authorship patterns, subject coverage, publishing dynamics, geographic distribution, temporal growth, and format preferences in Library and Information Science (LIS) dictionaries. The findings are presented below across six analytical dimensions.

7.1 Author-Wise Distribution and Productivity

Table 1 presents the author-wise distribution of LIS dictionaries. For this analysis, Indian authors, collaborators, compilers, or editors of first editions, as well as foreign authors whose works were published by Indian presses, were included.

S. No	Publisher	No. of Publications	S. No	Publisher	No. of Publications
1	Aditya Prakashan	1	30	JBD Book Distributor	1
2	Ane Books	1	31	K. S. Paperbacks	1
3	Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd	5	32	Kautilya Books	1
4	Aph Publishing Corporation	1	33	Library Publications	2
5	Arts & Science Academic Publishing	1	34	Lotus Press	1
6	Arun Publishing	1	35	Multivista Global	1
7	Associate Publication House	1	36	Neelkamal Publications Pvt. Ltd.	1
8	AU Press and Publication	1	37	Pacific Books International	1
9	Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad	1	38	Paradise Press	1
10	Bharat Bharti	1	39	Parvathi Book Centre	1
11	Book Centre Pvt Ltd	1	40	Pooja Pustak Kendra	1
12	BR Publishing Corporation	1	41	Prova Prakashani	1
13	Castle Books Pvt Ltd	1	42	Raj Publishing House	1
14	Central Hindi Directorate	1	43	Rajat Publications	1
15	Citation Publications	1	44	Rajkumar & Sons	1
16	Commission For Scientific & Technical Terminology (CSTT)	7	45	Regal Publication	2
17	Commonwealth Publishers	1	46	Sahitya Prakashan	1
18	Concept Publishing Company	1	47	Sarita Book House	1
19	Crest Publishing House	3	48	Shashi Publishing Company	1
20	Cyber Tech Publication	1	49	Shree Publishers & Distributors	2
21	Diamond Publications	2	50	The Readers Paradise	1
22	Ess Ess Publications	9	51	The World Press	1
23	Guru Nanak Dev University	1	52	University Granth Nirman Board	1
24	IASLIC	1	53	Unknown	1
25	Indian Book Company	1	54	Ventus Publications	1
26	Indian Standards Institution	1	55	Vidhya Vihar	1
27	Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU)	1	56	Y.K. Publishers	1
28	Insha Publications	1	Total		80
29	Isha Books	1

Ess Ess Publications leads the market with 9 dictionaries, followed by CSTT (7), Anmol Publications (5), and Crest Publishing House (3). Forty-eight publishers (85.7%) have contributed only a single title. Publishing concentration was quantified using the Gini Coefficient and Lorenz Curve:
Gini Coefficient: 0.276
 Interpretation: This value indicates moderate inequality. While not indicative of a monopoly, it reveals notable market concentration. The top 5 publishers (~9% of the total) account for 32.5% of all LIS dictionaries, whereas the bottom 50% of publishers contribute a comparatively minor share. This distribution pattern is characteristic of academic publishing ecosystems where a few specialised presses dominate niche reference markets.
Lorenz Curve Analysis
The Lorenz Curve plots the cumulative share of publications against the cumulative share of publishers (sorted from most to least productive).

Cumulative % of Publishers	Cumulative % of Publications	Interpretation
Top 5 publishers (~9%)	32.5%	Very high concentration
Top 10 publishers (~18%)	42.5%	Strong dominance
Top 20% of publishers	43.8%	Moderate skew
Bottom 50% of publishers	~30%	Many small players

The top 5 publishers (Ess Ess, CSTT, Anmol, Crest, and one more) account for nearly one-third of all LIS dictionaries in India, while nearly half the publishers (the 48 singles) contribute only a small share.
“The publisher-wise distribution shows moderate concentration with a Gini Coefficient of 0.276. The Lorenz Curve reveals that the top 9% of publishers (5 publishers) are responsible for 32.5% of all LIS dictionaries published in India.”
This is a standard and useful bibliometric measure for demonstrating market/publishing concentration. Here is the Lorenz Curve visualizing the inequality in publishing output: (Figure 1).