تحلیل شبکه همکاری های علمی در حوزه طب بازساختی در ایران
محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت دانشعطیه بزرگی پور 1 * , سروش قاضی نوری 2 , محمد نقی زاده 3
1 - دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
2 - دانشگاه علامه
3 - دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
کلید واژه: هم¬, نویسندگی, تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی, طب¬, بازساختی, همکاری علمی,
چکیده مقاله :
هم نویسندگی یکی از شایع ترین مظاهر همکاری علمی بین پژوهشگران و محققان شاخه های علمی می باشد. رشد قابل توجه این پدیده در شاخه های علمی مختلف در دو دهه ی اخیر باعث آن شده تا بررسی ویژگی های مختلف شبکه های هم-نویسندگی به مسأله ای جذاب برای محققان تبدیل گردد. بررسی شبکه های مذکور در شاخه های علمی مختلف از جمله ریاضیات، فیزیک و علوم اطلاع رسانی با استفاده از ابزارهای موجود در حوزه ی تحلیل شبکه های اجتماعی مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. با توجه به رشد روزافزون پدیده ی هم نویسندگی در حوزه های مختلف علوم پزشکی، در این مقاله شبکه ی هم-نویسندگی محققان ایرانی حوزه ی طب بازساختی مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته است. ضمنا شبکه ی همکاری علمی بین موسسات ایرانی فعال در حوزه ی طب بازساختی نیز تحلیل و بررسی گردیده است. در انتها بر مبنای تحلیل های صورت گرفته، پیشنهاداتی جهت ارتقاء سطح کمی و کیفی تحقیقات صورت گرفته آورده شده است.
Co-authorship is one of the most common manifestations of scientific collaboration between researchers and scholars of scientific disciplines. The significant growth of this phenomenon in various scientific disciplines in the last two decades has made the study of different features of co-authorship networks become an interesting issue for researchers. The study of these networks in various scientific disciplines such as mathematics, physics and information sciences using existing tools in the field of social network analysis has been considered. Due to the growing phenomenon of co-authorship in various fields of medical sciences, in this article, the co-authorship network of Iranian researchers in the field of reconstructive medicine has been analyzed. In addition, the network of scientific cooperation between Iranian institutions active in the field of reconstructive medicine has been analyzed and studied. Finally, based on the analysis, suggestions are made to improve the quantitative and qualitative level of research.
1. Nikzad, M., H.R. Jamali, and N. Hariri, Patterns of Iranian co-authorship networks in social sciences: A comparative study. Library & Information Science Research, 2011. 33(4): p. 313-319.
2. Wagner, C.S. and L. Leydesdorff. Mapping global science using international co-authorships: a comparison of 1990 and 2000. in Proceedings of ninth international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, Beijing. 2003.
3. Wang, Y., et al., Scientific collaboration in China as reflected in co-authorship. Scientometrics, 2005. 62(2): p. 183-198.
4. Faramarz Soheili and Farideh Osareh, A Survey on Density and Size of Co-authorship Networks in Information Science Journals. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 2014. 29(2): p. 351-372.
5. Hudson, J., Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1996. 10(3): p. 153-158.
6. Abbasi, A., L. Hossain, and L. Leydesdorff, Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 2012. 6(3): p. 403-412.
7. Moody, J., The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American sociological review, 2004. 69(2): p. 213-238.
8. Barabási, A.-L. and R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks. science, 1999. 286(5439): p. 509-512.
9. Barabási, A.-L., et al., Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical mechanics and its applications, 2002. 311(3): p. 590-614.
10. Newman, M.E., Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical review E, 2001. 64(2): p. 025102.
11. Yousefi-Nooraie, R., et al., Association between co-authorship network and scientific productivity and impact indicators in academic medical research centers: a case study in Iran. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2008. 6(1): p. 9.
12. Kundra, R. and H. Kretschmer, A new model of scientific collaboration part 2. Collaboration patterns in Indian medicine. Scientometrics, 1999. 46(3): p. 519-528.
13. Zare-Farashbandi, F., E. Geraei, and S. Siamaki, Study of co-authorship network of papers in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences using social network analysis. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences : The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2014. 19(1): p. 41-46.
14. Melin, G. and O. Persson, Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 1996. 36(3): p. 363-377.
15. Peters, H. and A. Van Raan, Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis: An expercise on a university faculty level. Scientometrics, 1991. 20(1): p. 235-255.
16. Stokes, T.D. and J.A. Hartley, Coauthorship, social structure and influence within specialties. Social Studies of Science, 1989. 19(1): p. 101-125.
17. Glänzel, W. and A. Schubert, Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, 2004. 11: p. 257-279.
18. Newman, M.E., The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2001. 98(2): p. 404-409.
19. Faramarz Soheili, Farideh Osareh, and Abdolhosain Farajpahloo, Social Network Analyses of Information Science Researchers Co-authorship. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 2014. 29(1): p. 191-210.
20. Sohieli, F., M. Cheshme Sohrabi, and S. Atashpaykar, Co-authorship network analysis of Iranian medical science researchers: A social network analysis. Caspian Journal of Scientometrics, 2015. 2(1): p. 24-32.
21. Navarro, A. and M. Martín, Scientific production and international collaboration in occupational health, 1992-2001. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2004: p. 223-233.
22. Mohammadian, S. and E. Vaziri, Analysis and Visualization of Scientific Collaboration of Iran Universities of Medical Sciences Using Social Network Analysis Metrics Based on Web of Science Database. Payavard Salamat, 2017. 11(1): p. 43-56.
23. Heydari, M. and Z. Safavi, The survey of Collaborative Coefficient of article authors in “Journal of Research in Medical Sciences” since 2007 to 2011. Pejouhesh dar Pezeshki (Research in Medicine), 2012. 36(2): p. 109-113.
24. Marefat, R., et al., A survey on collaboration rate of authors in presenting scientific papers in Koomesh journal during 1999-2010. koomesh Journal, 2012. 13(3): p. 279-286.
25. Shekofteh, M. and N. Hariri, Scientific mapping of medicine in Iran using subject category co-citation and social network analysis. Journal of Health Administration, 2013. 16(51): p. 43-59.
26. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh, R.B.J. Vala Ali Rohani, and Zohreh Gholamhosseinzadeh, Investigating Scientific Collaboration of Iranian Psychology and Psychiatry Researchers. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 2014. 29(1): p. 137-163.
27. Shahrabi Farahani, H., et al., A Study of Scientific Collaboration in Iranian Cardiovascular Articles in Web of Science 2002 – 2011. Journal of Health Administration, 2014. 17(56): p. 46-55.
28. باجی, ف. and ف. عصاره, ساختار شبکة هم نویسندگی حوزة علوم اعصاب ایران با استفاده از رویکرد تحلیل شبکة اجتماعی. مطالعات کتابداری و علم اطلاعات, 2015. 21(14، پاییز و زمستان): p. 71-92.
29. حامد, ب., et al., ترسيم شبكه هاي هم تاليفي حوزه طب اورژانس ايران با استفاده از تحليل خوشه اي.
30. Zhao, D. and A. Strotmann, Intellectual structure of stem cell research: a comprehensive author co-citation analysis of a highly collaborative and multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 2011. 87(1): p. 115-131.
31. Shvets, A., et al. Detection of current research directions based on full-text clustering. in Science and Information Conference (SAI), 2015. 2015. IEEE.
32. Scott, C.T., et al., Democracy derived? New trajectories in pluripotent stem cell research. Cell, 2011. 145(6): p. 820-826.
33. Gimble, J.M., A.J. Katz, and B.A. Bunnell, Adipose-derived stem cells for regenerative medicine. Circulation research, 2007. 100(9): p. 1249-1260.
34. Miles, M., A. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative Data Analysis, Vol. 16. European Journal of Science, 1984. 465: p. 427-440.
35. Shibata, N., et al. Detecting emerging research fronts in regenerative medicine by citation network analysis of scientific publications. in Management of Engineering & Technology, 2009. PICMET 2009. Portland International Conference on. 2009. IEEE.
36. Travers, J. and S. Milgram, An experimental study of the small world problem. Sociometry, 1969: p. 425-443.
37. Newman, M.E., Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 2004. 101(suppl 1): p. 5200-5205.
38. Barabási, A.-L. and E. Bonabeau, Scale-free networks. Scientific american, 2003. 288(5): p. 60-69.
39. Hwang, C.-L. and K. Yoon, Methods for multiple attribute decision making, in Multiple attribute decision making. 1981, Springer. p. 58-191.