Aerospace: A Scientometrics Study and Centrality Indicators Analysis of Researchers' Co-authorship Network

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Knowledge and Information Science, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, School of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor of Library and Information Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran,

3 Assistant Professor Department of Information Management. Islamic World Science & Technology Monitoring and Citation Institute (ISC), Shiraz, Iran.

4 Professor of Library and Information Sciences, Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose: The aerospace industry and technology are always considered one of the most important and valuable industries due to their special and unique features and applications. The field of aerospace research is a priority in the grand strategies of science and technology development, and it is essential to focus on it. Aerospace researchers and experts play critical roles in advancing aerospace science and industry. They are responsible for conducting scientific and industrial activities as well as research. Evaluating the research performance and quality of aerospace researchers at the international level is crucial. The current research aims to study scientometrics and analyze the centrality metrics of the co-authorship network of aerospace researchers at the international level. This will be done using data available on the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC).
Methodology: The research conducted is of an applied nature, employing an analytical approach. In this article, the technique of network analysis has been employed to visualize the network of co-authorship at both the micro and macro levels. This includes analyzing the social network of co-authorship among researchers and their organizations, as well as examining centrality indicators and conducting network analysis of researchers' research topics. The current research community includes all aerospace researchers, with 153,994 records indexed on the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) from 1945 to 2021. There are 161,156 aerospace researchers, of which 6,706 were anonymous and were excluded from the research population. Therefore, 154,450 researchers were included in the study. Data Lab was used to accurately extract data for aerospace researchers. Ravar PreMap was also used to standardize data and prepare a square matrix for researchers. The symmetric correlation matrix of researchers (AU) was obtained using Bibexcel and Netdraw. Then, the required centralities were calculated. Co-authorship maps were also created using NetDraw. Co-authorship network analysis technique was used for data analysis. A 157×157 matrix was considered to identify keywords that appeared with a frequency of 70 or more. This matrix was used to create a network of commonly researched topics among researchers. VOSviewer version 1.6.18 was used to visualize co-authorship networks.
Findings: The density of the co-authorship network among aerospace researchers is low, and the network exhibits low cohesion. In the current research, five clusters of collaboration were identified, with the center consisting of prominent researchers in the field of aerospace. "David A. Fulghum" of the Maritime Center in America published 863 articles in the field of aerospace between 1983 and 2003. "Florian Menter" from Ensys Germany has the highest number of citations (excluding self-citations) for published articles in the aerospace field. Out of 87,778 keywords identified in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSC C) in aerospace, 9712 were associated with Florian Menter. Additionally, a map was prepared using 157 keywords that had a frequency of 70 or more. The co-word clusters of the aerospace network consist of seven topic clusters, 157 nodes, 2679 edges, and have a density of 0.11. The first cluster was a hot topic discussed in the aerospace industry, and the most frequently mentioned topic, "Aircraft," is associated with cluster 3. The most prominent topics are aerodynamics, flight control, and vibrations. The most significant scientific collaboration of aerospace researchers is between Giovanni Mengali and Alessandro A. Quarta from the University of Pisa, Italy. The most scientific advancements in aerospace research have been published in the fields of aerodynamics, flight mechanics, control, and vibrations. After the United States, China had the most scholarly communications with other countries.
Conclusion: Developing science policy and advancing strategic plans and programs for aerospace research require comprehensive and accurate information about researchers' potential scientific and technical abilities. The involvement of prominent aerospace researchers in communication and scientific collaborations has resulted in the establishment of significant international partnerships in the aerospace industry. In order to effectively participate in robust and cohesive scientific collaboration networks, it is necessary to enhance communication among researchers, research centers, and countries, and leverage their synergistic capabilities. The present research results are utilized in the science, technology, and innovation policies of the aerospace industry. It is also used in the planning and direction of applied research, as well as in the application of research conducted by aerospace scientific associations, universities, research institutes, and aerospace industry organizations. Additionally, the results obtained from this research can be used to expand international cooperation among aerospace researchers. Another application of the results presented in this article is the optimal utilization of experts and meticulous planning for the establishment and growth of specialized clusters of aerospace researchers. Prominent aerospace researchers have facilitated the establishment of scientific collaborations and significant partnerships at the international level. Nevertheless, in order to establish stronger and more cohesive scientific collaboration networks, it is essential to prioritize the exploration of potential connections among researchers, research centers, universities, and countries, as well as their synergistic capabilities.

Keywords

References

ابراهیمی، س.، عفیفیان، ف.، و گل‌تاجی، م. (1397). آیا اشتراک دانش در شبکه علمی ریسرچ‌گیت شاخص‌های بهره‌وری پژوهشگران را افزایش می‌دهد؟ مطالعه موردی فیزیک‌دانان برتر جهان. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 4 (8)، 57-72. https://doi.org/‌10.22070/rsci.2018.614
باجی، ف.، و عصاره، ف. (1393). ساختار شبکه هم‌نویسندگی حوزه علوم اعصاب ایران با استفاده از رویکرد تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی. مطالعات کتابداری و علم اطلاعات، 6 (14)، 71-92.  https://slis.scu.ac.ir/article_11313.html
باشکوه، ا.، اکرامی، م.، سهیلی، ف.، و کریمی دشتکی، ا. (1399). مطالعه‌ اثرات راهبردهای هم‌نویسندگی بر بهره‌وری علمی پژوهشگران حوزه آموزش از دور: کاربست روش تحلیل شبکه‌های اجتماعی و پارادایم سرمایه اجتماعی. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 6(2)، 79-102. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.4471.1294
برزو، س. (1397). فناوری هوافضای روسیه 60 سال بعد از اسپوتنیک، در مسیر رشد یا ایستایی؟. اسپاش، دسترسی در: https://espash.ir/?p=11275 (30 فروردین 1401).
تاج‌الدینی، ا.، سهیلی، ف.، و سادات موسوی، ع. (1398). سنجه‌های مرکزیت در شبکه‌های هم‌نویسندگی: هم‌افزایی یا هم‌زدایی در عملکرد پژوهشی پژوهشگران. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 34 (3)، 1423-1452. https://doi.org/ 10.35050/JIPM010.2019.044
حاصلی، د.، قویدل، س.، و ریاحی‌نیا، ن. (1400). انتشارات علمی و شبکه‌های همکاری دانشگاه خوارزمی در پایگاه استنادی وب‌آوساینس (۱۹۹۴ – ۲۰۲۰). تعامل انسان و اطلاعات، ۸ (۱)، 1-19. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.24237418.1400.8.1.6.5
حریری، ن.، و نیکزاد، م. (1390). شبکه‌های هم‌تألیفی در مقالات ایرانی رشته‌های کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، روان‌شناسی، مدیریت و اقتصاد در پایگاه ISI بین سال‌های 2000 تا 2009. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 26 (4)، 825-844. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699077.html
خاصه، ع، ‌ا. (1394). ساختار دانش در حوزه مطالعات سنجشی: مطالعه هم‌استنادی، هم‌نویسندگی، و هم‌واژگانی تولیدات علمی بر اساس رویکردهای تحلیل شبکه و دیداری‌سازی علم. [رساله دکتری علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی]، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، مشهد: دانشگاه پیام نور مشهد.
دانش، ف.، و قویدل، س. (1400). یک قرن مشارکت علمی پژوهشگران بروسلا و بروسلوز: مطالعه علم‏سنجی. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، (انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 6 آذر 1400)، 1-9. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2021.14770.1514
دانش، ف.، عبدالمجید، ا. ح.، افشار، م.، موسوی‌فر، ص.، و فرهادی، ف. (1388). بررسی رابطه همبستگی میان تولید علم و میزان همکاری گروهی دانشمندان کتابداری و اطلاع‏رسانی در جهان. پژوهشنامه مدیریت و پردازش اطلاعات، 25 (1)، 5-22. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699000.html.
دبیری، ف.، نوروزی چاکلی، ع.، و اسدی، س. (1399). ارزیابی همکاری‌های علمی پژوهشگران ایران در حوزه علم و فناوری میکروالکترونیک در پایگاه اطلاعاتی اسکاپوس طی سال‌های2000-2017، پژوهش‌نامه علم‌‌سنجی، 6 (12)، 1-20. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.3933.1251
دائره‌المعارف کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی .(1381 – 1388). تهران‌: کتابخانه ملی جمهوری اسلامی ایران‌.
رحیم‌پور، ن، محمدی، م، قاسمی، ع. (1397). تحلیل استنادی و ترسیم شبکه استنادی مقالات مرتبط با بیماری اسکیزوفرنی. مجله علم‌سنجی کاسپین، 5 (۲)، ۶۵-۵۶. https://doi.org/10.22088/cjs.5.2.56
رضایی حقیقی، م.، دانش، ف.، شبانکاره، ز.، و حمیدی، ع. (1399). انتشارات علمی پژوهشگران ایرانی بیماری‌های ایسکمیک قلبی بر اساس شاخص‌های نفوذ فکری و شاخص‌های مرکزیت. مدیریت اطلاعات سلامت، 17 (2)، 80-86. https://doi.org/10.22122/him. v17i2.4101
سهیلی، ف.، شریف‌مقدم، ه.، موسوی چلک، ا.، و خاصه، ع، ‌ا. (1394). ارزیابی پژوهش‌های آیمتریکس با استفاده از مدل نفوذ علمی. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 32 (1). 25-50.
https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2016.018
سهیلی، ف.، و عصاره ف. (1389). بررسی انتشارات علمی اعضای هیئت علمی دانشگاه رازی در نمایه استنادی علوم طی سال‌های 1992-2008. مجله مطالعات کتابداری و علم اطلاعات، 1 (4).81. https://www.sid.ir/paper/211695/fa
سهیلی، ف.، و عصاره ف.  (1392). مفاهیم مرکزیت و تراکم در شبکه‌های علمی و اجتماعی. فصلنامه مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازمان‌دهی اطلاعات، 24(3). 92-108. http://46.209.25.211/article_64.html
سهیلی، ف.، و عصاره ف.  (1391). بررسی تراکم و اندازه شبکه اجتماعی موجود در شبکه هم‌نویسندگی مجلات علم اطلاعات. پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 29 (2). 351-372. https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2014.038
شرفی، ع.، و شقاقی، ع. (1400). ترسیم نقشه همکاری علمی حوزه سرمایه فکری در پایگاه استنادی وب ‌آو ‌ساینس(WoS) . مجله علم‌سنجی کاسپین، 8 (۲)، 4۱-5۱. https://doi.org/10.22088/cjs.8.2.41
صادق ویشکائی، م.، اسمعیلی گیوی، م.، و ناخدا، م. (1397). بررسی تأثیر تحرک علمی بین‌المللی اعضای هیئت علمی دانشگاه تهران بر عملکرد پژوهشی و همکاری‌های علمی آنها. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 4(1)، 37-58. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2018.638
طاهری دولت‌آبادی، ب.، و قضاوی، ر. (آذر1392). دیداری‌سازی انتشارات علمی کشور ایران در قلمرو‌ موضوعی هوافضا بر اساس هم‌رخدادی کلمات با استفاده از پایگاه web of science، مقاله ارائه‌شده در ششمین همایش ادکا (مفاهیم نظری و کاربردی علم‌سنجی: از علم تا عمل) 5-6‌، تهران: مرکز آموزش‌های شهید حیدری (خانه مشق).
عصاره، ف.، نوروزی چاکلی، ع.، و کشوری، م. (1389). هم‌نویسندگی پژوهشگران ایران در نمایه‌های استنادی علوم، علوم اجتماعی، هنر و علوم انسانی در پایگاه Web of Science در سال‌های 2000 تا 2006. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 25 (4)، 573-595. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/?_action=article&au=2857954&_au=%DA%A9%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%8C%20%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%85
................... .، سهیلی، ف.، فرج‌پهلو، ع.، و معرف‌زاده، ع. (139۱). بررسی سنجه مرکزیت در شبکه هم‌نویسندگی مقالات مجلات علم اطلاعات. پژوهش‏نامه کتابداری و اطلاع‏رسانی، 2 (2)، 181-200. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis. v2i2.13610
فدایی، غ.، و حسن‌زاده‌ کمند، ه. (1389). بررسی تولیدات علمی اعضای هیئت علمی حوزۀ علوم انسانی دانشگاه تبریز طی سال‌های ۱۳۸۱- ۱۳۸۶. تحقیقات اطلاع‌رسانی و کتابخانه‌های عمومی، 16 (۲)، ۱57-۱75. https://www.sid.ir/paper/88748/fa
گلینی‌مقدم، گ.، و طاهری، پ. (1394). ترسیم شبکه هم نویسندگی و ضریب همکاری علمی پژوهشگران ایرانی در حوزه هوافضا در نمایه استنادی علوم تا 2014 میلادی، فصلنامه بازیابی‌دانش و نظام‌های معنایی، 2 (3)، 23-42. https://jks.atu.ac.ir/article_1606.html
مصطفوی، ا.، و آژ، م. (زودآیند). بررسی تأثیر همکاری‌های علمی بین‌المللی در افزایش کیفیت برون‌دادهای علمی پژوهشگران ایران در پایگاه اطلاعاتی وب آو ساینس. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی (انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 21 اردیبهشت 1400): https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2021.13871.1477
نقشه جامع علمی کشور (1389). شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی، نقشه جامع علمی کشور، 1-24.
نوروزی چاکلی، ع. (1388). کاربرد روش‌ها و شاخص‌های کتاب‌سنجی در مطالعات علم‏سنجی. عیار، 22: 49-72. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.26767503.1388.14.22.4.0
وزیری، ا. (26مهر 1389). علم ایران در گروه موضوعی مهندسی هوافضا در سطح بین‌الملل: مطالعه‌ای علم‌سنجی بر اساس آمار پایگاه مؤسسه اطلاعات علمی (ISI). ویژه‌نامه همایش وضعیت اشتغال فارغ‌التحصیلان هوافضا، تهران: دانشگاه امیرکبیر. https://civilica.com/doc/134766/
وزیری، ا.‌، و رجبعلی بگلو، ر. (10 تا 12 اسفند1389). مهندسی هوافضای ایران و جهان در آینه علم‌سنجی: مطالعه‌ای در پایگاه‌های استنادی، مقاله ارائه‌شده در دهمین کنفرانس انجمن هوافضای ایران، تهران. https://civilica.com/doc/134766/
 
 
Alonso-Valdivielso, M.Á., Antonio, E.G. (2010). Why Include Bibliometric Analysis in the Activities of a Library Specialized in Astronomy? - Notes from the Libraries of INTA. [Conference: 6th Library and Information Services in Astronomy Location: ‏ Pune], INDIA Date: ‏ FEB 14-17. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ASPC..433...95A/abstract
  
Andrikopoulos, A., & Economou, L. (2015). Editorial board interlocks in financial economics. International Review of Financial Analysis, 37: 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.11.015
Baji, F., & Osareh, F. (2015). An Investigation into the Structure of the Co-authorship Network of Neuroscience field in Iran, using a Social Network Analysis Approach. Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science, 6(14), 71-92. https://slis.scu.ac.ir/article_11313.html [In Persian].
Bashkoh, A., Ekrami, M., Soheili, F., & Karimi, A. (2020). Study of the Effects of Co-Authorship Strategies on Scientific Productivity of Researchers in Distance Education: Application of social network analysis method and social capital paradigm. Scientometrics Research Journal, 6(12), 79-102.
https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.4471.1294 [In Persian].
Beck, M. T. (1978). Editorialstatement. Scientometrics, 1(1), 1-2.

Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D.A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, (1), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00018

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59: 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20806

Borzo, C. (2017). Russian aerospace technology 60 years after Sputnik, on the path of growth or stagnation? Spash, Access at: https://espash.ir/?p=11275 (April 19, 2022). [In Persian].
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674843714
Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A. & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003
Ganguli, R. (2008). A scientometric analysis of recent aerospace research. Current Science, 95(12), 1670-1672. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292477713_A_scientometric_analysis_of_recent_aerospace_research
Cheng, B. (2006). Using social network analyses to investigate potential bias in editorial peer review in core journals of Comparative/International Education. [PhD. Dissertation], Brigham Young University.
Clarivate (2021). Researcher Recognition. Available at:  https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/researcher-recognition/ (March 29, 2021)
Codina, L., Morales-Vargas, A., Rodríguez-Martínez, R., & Pérez-Montoro, M. (2020). Uso de Scopus y Web of Science para investigar y evaluar en comunicación social: análisis comparativoy caracterización. index. comunicación, 10(3), 235-261.
Comprehensive scientific map of the country (2010). Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, comprehensive scientific map of the country: 1-24. [In Persian].
Cotta, C., & Merelo, J.J. (2007). Where is evolutionary computation going? A temporal analysis of the E.C. community. Genet Program Evolvable Mach, 8, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-007-9031-0
Danesh, F., Abdulmajid, A. H., Afshar, M., Mousavifar, S., & Farhadi, F. (2022). Correlation between Scientific Output and Collaboration among LIS Scholars around the World [as Reflected in Emerald Database]. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 25(1), 5-22. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699000.html [In Persian].
Danesh, F., & GhaviDel, S. (2021). A Century of Scholarly Collaboration by Brucella and Brucellosis Researchers: A Scientometric Study. Scientometrics Research Journal, (Articles in Press), 1-‌29. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2021.14770.1514 [In Persian].
Dabiri, F., Noroozi Chakoli, A., & Asadi, S. (2020). Evaluation of Scientific Collaboration of Iranian Researchers in the Field of Microelectronics Science and Technology in the Scopus Database in 2000-2017. Scientometrics Research Journal, 6(12), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.3933.1251 [In Persian].
Ebrahimi, S., Afifian, F., & Goltaji, M. (2018). Does Knowledge Sharing in ReseachGate Scientific Network Increase Research-ers’ Productivity Indicators? Case Study of Top World Physicists. Scientometrics Research Journal, 4(8), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2018.614 [In Persian].
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2008). An h-index weighted by citation impact. Information Processing and Management, 44: 770–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.05.003
Fadaie, G., & Hassanzadeh Kamand, H. (2010). Evaluation of Scientific Publications of Faculty Members of Human Sciences Department in Tabriz University during 2002-2007. Research on Information Science and Public Libraries (RISPL), 16 (2), 157-175. https://www.sid.ir/paper/88748/fa [In Persian].
Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, 257-276, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12
Guns, R., & Rousseau, R. (2009). Real and rational variants of the h-index and the g-index. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.11.004
Galyani-Moghaddam, G., & Taheri, P. (2015). Mapping co-authorship network and scientific collaborative coefficient of Iranian researchers in the field of aerospace in the Science Citation Index to 2014. Knowledge Retrieval and Semantic Systems, 2(3), 23-42.  https://jks.atu.ac.ir/article_1606.html [In Persian].
Hanneman, R. A. & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. In R. A. Hanneman & M. Riddle (ed.), University of California, Riverside. (Accessed 2 Mar 2012).
Hariri, N., & Nikzad, M. (2022). Co-authorship networks of Iranian articles in library and information science, psychology, management and economics in ISI during 2000-2009. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 26(4), 825-844. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699077.html [In Persian].
Haseli, D., Ghavidel, S., & Riahinia, N. (2021). Kharazmi University Scientific Publications and Co-authorship Networks in Web of Science (1994-2020). Human and Information Interaction, 8(1), 1-19. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.24237418.1400.8.1.6.5 [In Persian].

Hirsch, J.E. (2019). hα: An index to quantify an individual's scientific leadership. Scientometrics, 118, 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2994-1

Inkpen, A.C., Tsan, E.W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of management review, 30(1): 146-165.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20159100
Khasseh, A.A. (2014). The structure of knowledge in the field of quantitative studies: the study of co-citation, co-authorship, and synonyms of scientific productions based on the approaches of network analysis and visualization of science. [Doctoral dissertation in information science and epistemology], Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Payam Noor Mashhad University, Mashhad. [In Persian].
Library and information encyclopedia (2009). Tehran: National Library of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1385-1381. [In Persian].
Liwei, Z., & Chunlin, J. (2015). Social network analysis and academic performance of the editorial board members for journals of library and information science. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 9(2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2015.1069947
Mazurek, J. (2018). A modification to Hirsch index allowing comparisons across different scientific fields. Current Science, 114, 2238–2239. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1703.05485
Mostafavi, I., & Azh, M. (2021). Investigating the Impact of International Scientific Cooperation on Increasing the Quality of Scientific Outputs of Iranian Researchers in the Web of Science Database. Scientometrics Research Journal,  [Article in Press]. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2021.13871.1477 [In Persian].
Noroozi Chakoli, A. (2009). Application of bibliometric methods and indicators in scientific studies. Ayar, 22, 49- 72. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.26767503.1388.14.22.4.0 [In Persian].
Osareh, F. (2006). Collaboration in Astronomy Knowledge Production: A Case Study in ScienceDirect from 2000-2004 In: P. Ingwersen, B. Larsen (Eds), Proceedings of ISSI 2005 – the 10th International [Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics], Vol. 2, Stockholm, Sweden, 24-28 July 2005, Karolinska University Press, 2036, 660-661. https://www.issi-society.org/proceedings/issi_2005/Osareh_ISSI2005.pdf
………….., Noroozi Chakoli, A., & Keshvari, M. (2022). Co-authorship of Iranian Researchers in Science, Social Science, Art and Humanities Citation Indexes in the Web of Science between 2000 and 2006. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 25(4), 573-595. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/?_action=article&au=2857954&_au=%DA%A9%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%8C%20%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%85&lang=en [In Persian].
……………, Soheili, F., farajpahlo, A., & moarefzadeh, A. (2012). A survay on centrality measure in co-authorship networks in information science journals. Library and Information Science Research, 2(2), 181- 200.  https://doi.org/‌10.22067/riis. v2i2.13610 [In Persian].
Pelicioni, L.C., Ribeiro, J.R., Devezas, T., Belderrain, M.C.N., & Melo, F.C.L. (2018). Application of a Bibliometric Tool for Studying Space Technology Trends. J Aerosp Tecnol Manag, 10(830): 3-8 . https://doi.org/10.50.28/jatm. v10. 830
Perry, M., & Reny, P. J. (2016). How to count citations if you must. American Economic Review, 106, 2722–2741. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140850
Rahimpour, N., Mohammadi, M., & Ghassemi, A. (2018). Citation analysis and network drawing of schizophrenia-related articles. Caspian Journal of Scientometrics (CJS), 5(2), 56- 65. https://doi.org/10.22088/cjs.5.2.56 [In Persian].
Rezaei-Haghighi, M., Danesh, F., Shabankareh, K., & Hamidi, A. (2020). Assessment of Scientific Publications of Iranian Researchers in the Field of Myocardial Ischemia Diseases Based on the Indicators of Ideational Influence and Social Influence. Health Information Management, 17(2), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.22122/him. v17i2.4101 [In Persian].
Rousseau, R., & Ye, F. (2008). A proposal for a dynamic h-type index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1853–1855. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20890
Sadegh Vishkaee, M., Esmaili Givi, M. R., & Nakhoda, M. (2018). A Study on the Impact of International Scientific Mobility of the University of Tehran Faculty Members on Their Re-search Performance and Scientific Col-laborations. Scientometrics Research Journal, 4(7), 37-58. https://doi.org/10.22070/RSCI.2018.638 [In Persian].
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
Sharafi, A., & Shaghaghi, A. (2021). Drawing the Scientific Collaboration Map of Intellectual Capital Field in the Web of Science. Caspian Journal of Scientometrics (CJS), 8 (2), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.22088/cjs.8.2.41 [In Persian].
Soheili, F., & Osareh, F. (2014). A Survey on Density and Size of Co-authorship Networks in Information Science Journals. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 29(2), 351-372. https://doi.org/ 10.35050/JIPM010.2014.038 [In Persian].
........................................... (2010). Examining scientific publications of Razi University faculty members in science citation index during 1992-2008. Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science, 1(4), 81. https://www.sid.ir/paper/211695/fa [In Persian].
............................................. (2013). Concepts of Centrality and Density in Scientific and Social Networks. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies, 24(3), 92-108.  http://46.209.25.211/article_64.html [In Persian].
Soheili, F., Sharif Moghaddam, H., Mousavi Chelak, A., & Khasseh, A. A. (2022). An Evaluation of iMetric Studies through the Scholarly Influence Model. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 32(1), 25-50. https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2016.018 [In Persian].
Stefano, D.D., Giordano, G., & Vitale, M.P. (2011). Issues in the analysis of co-authorship networks. Quality & Quantity, 45(5),1091-1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9493-2
Tajedini, O., Soheili, F., & Sadatmoosavi, A. (2022). The Centrality Measures in Co-authorship Networks: Synergy or Antagonism in Researchersâ Research Performance. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 34(3), 1423-1452.  https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2019.044 [In Persian].
Taheri Daulatabadi, B., & Qadawi, R. (2013). Visualization of Iran's scientific publications in the field of aerospace based on the co-occurrence of words using the web of science database, an article presented at the 6th ADKA [conference (Theoretical and applied concepts of scientology: from science to practice)], 5-6, November, Education Center Shahid Heydari (Mashakh House), Tehran. [In Persian].

Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2008). Generalizing the h- and g-indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2: 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.004

Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465, 864–866. https://doi.org/10.1038/465864a

Vasfi, M., Mohammadian, S., & Bamir, M. (2014). Analysis of the Conceptual Structures and Text Mining Scientific Outputs of Political Science: with Emphasis on Islamic Studies. Quarterly Journal of Political Research in Islamic World, 4(1), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.20286/priw-0401123
Vavilova, I.B., Zievako V.S., Pakuliak L.K., & Potapovych L.P.  (2020). “Space Science and Technology” journal: Statistics and Scientometrics for 1995–2020. Space Science and Technology, 26(6): 094-103. https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2020.06.094
Vaziri, I., & Rajabali Baglo, R. (2010). Aerospace engineering of Iran and the world in the mirror of scientology: studies in citation databases, [paper presented at the 10th conference of the Iranian Aerospace Association], March 10-12, Tehran. [In Persian].
……….. (2010). Iranian science in the subject group of aerospace engineering at the international level: a scientometric study based on the statistics of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Special issue of the conference on the employment status of aerospace graduates, 26 October, Amirkabir University, Tehran. https://civilica.com/doc/134766 [In Persian].
Web of Science Core Collection (2021). Categories & Collections (Scope Notes). Available at: Available at: https://mjl.clarivate.com/help-center (April 25)
Yaminfrooz, M., & Gholinia, H. (2015). Multiple h-index: A new scientometric indicator. Electronic Library, 33(547), 556. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-07-2013-0137
 
Yoosin, K., Yeonjin, SeongGwan., & Seung, R.J. (2017). Practical Text Mining for Trend Analysis: Ontology to visualization in Aerospace Technology. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 11(8): 4133-4145. https://doi.org/10.3837/tiis.2017.08.022
 
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics