Analysis of the Scientific Cooperation Network of Ontology Researchers Using Social Network Indicators and Examining the Degree of Correlation Between Centrality Indicators and Researchers' Productivity and Efficiency

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Information Science, Faculty of Education Sciences & Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 PhD Candidate, Department of Information Science, Faculty of Education Sciences & Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the scientific cooperation network of ontology researchers using social network indicators. It also investigates the correlation between centrality indicators and the productivity and efficiency of researchers in this field.
Methodology: The present study is an applied research project that utilizes scientometric techniques and indicators. The social network analysis method was employed to illustrate and analyze the scientific cooperation network in the field of ontology. In order to retrieve the outputs related to the field of ontology, a search was conducted for the term "Ontolog*" in the title and subject fields of the Web of Science database from 1990 to July 2, 2021. The search strategy used is TI=(Ontolog*) OR TS=(Ontolog*). In the next step, the recovered findings were limited to research conducted in the fields of computer science, information science, and librarianship. This is because ontology is a subject that is also used in other fields such as philosophy, religious studies, biology, and so on. Despite the fact that the concept of ontology in this research is "a tool that specifies the concepts of the related field, their characteristics, and the relationships between concepts and characteristics, thereby increasing the semantic interaction between documents and sources to process complex, advanced, and text-sensitive questions." Among the retrieved data, original articles, conference articles, review articles, and editorials with more credibility were selected. In the end, 29,611 research articles were obtained. The retrieved records were entered into VOSviewer version 16.6.1 software for matrix design and visual map design. To standardize the names, Gephi software was used. The matrix designed in Gephi software was then imported, and micro-indexes of social network analysis were calculated. These measures included degree centrality, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, and eigenvector centrality. The calculation of macro indicators for the co-authorship network in the field of ontology outputs was also performed using the UCINET software. To test the research hypotheses, SPSS software Version 24 was utilized. Due to the non-normal distribution of the data, a non-parametric test (Spearman's correlation) was used to test the hypotheses.
Findings: Examination of the four measures of centrality, which include degree centrality, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, and special vector centrality, revealed that Pascal Hitzler from Kansas State University, USA; Stefano Borgo from the Italian National Research Council; Jeff Z. Pan from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland; Stefan Schulz from the Medical University of Graz, Austria; Barry Smith from the University of Buffalo, USA; Nicola Guarino from the National Research Council of Italy; Ian Horrock from the University of Oxford, England; Bernardo Cuenca Grau from the University of Oxford, England; Heiner Stuckenschmidt from the University of Mannheim, Germany; and Jerome Euzenat from the Diderot University of Paris, France are the most influential researchers in the co-authorship network in the field of ontology. The analysis of the scientific cooperation network in the field of ontology using macro indicators of social network analysis revealed that the network is not cohesive. This is evident from the density value, which is less than one, and the high clustering coefficient of the network. Of course, the flow of information in this network is fast, based on the network's diameter and average distance. Additionally, the findings revealed a significant and positive correlation between centrality measures (such as degree, closeness, betweenness, and special vector centrality) and both the number of scientific productions and the number of citations. However, it is worth noting that the relationship between closeness centrality and scientific productions was found to be not significant.
Conclusion: The results showed that the cooperation between researchers who know each other has led to a decrease in the diameter of the network and the average distance in the web of ontology co-authorship. As a result, the information flow in this network has intensified, overcoming the weaknesses of low density and high clustering coefficient. According to the results, when authors collaborate with colleagues they know in the field of ontology, the network diameter and average distance decrease, resulting in increased information flow in the ontology co-authorship network. This holds true even when the density and clustering coefficient are high.

Keywords

References

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، 21 (14)، 71-92. https://slis.scu.ac.ir/article_11313.html
باشکوه، ا.، اکرامی، م.، سهیلی، ف.، و کریمی، ا. (1399). مطالعه اثرات راهبردهای هم‌تألیفی بر بهره‌وری علمی پژوهشگران حوزه آموزش از راه دور: کاربست فن تحلیلی شبکه‌های اجتماعی و پارادایم سرمایه اجتماعی. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 6 (2)، 102-79. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.4471.1294
بقایی، س.، حسن‌زاده، م.، و نوروزی چاکلی، ع. (‌1387). هم‌تألیفی مقالات ایرانی در مجلات ISI: در طول سال‌های 1989 تا 2005 و رابطة آن با میزان استناد به آن مقالات. سیاست علم و فناوریT 4، 11-20. https://dorl.net/dor 20.1001.1.20080840.1387.1.4.3.5
تاج‌الدینی، ا.، سهیلی، ف.، و سادات‌موسوی، ع. (1398). سنجه‌های مرکزیت در شبکه‌های هم‌نویسندگی: هم‌افزایی یا هم‌زدایی در عملکرد پژوهشی پژوهشگران، پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 34 (3)، 1423-1452. https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2019.044
حسن‌زاده دیزجی، ا.، عصاره، ف.، توکلی فراش، ل.، و اسمعیل پونکی، ا. (1401). تحلیل ساختار شبکه اجتماعی هم‌نویسندگی و هم‌واژگانی پژوهشگران ایرانی حوزۀ کیفیت زندگی با استفاده از شاخص‌های تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 8(15)، 231-461. https://doi.org/ 10.22070/rsci.2020.5766.1425
حسن‌زاده، پ.، اسفندیار مقدم، ع.، سهیلی، ف.، و موسوی چلک، ا. (1397). هم‌نویسندگی و رابطه نفوذ اجتماعی و میزان بهره‌وری پژوهشگران حوزه نارسایی مزمن قلب و عروق. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 4 (2)، 143-160. https://doi.org/‌10.22070/rsci.2018.617
حسینی بهشتی، م.، خوئینی، سهیلا.، و اسمعیل پونکی، ا. (1400). مطالعه کتاب‌سنجی و تحلیل شبکه هم‌نویسندگی و خوشه‌های موضوعی پژوهش‌های هستان‌شناسی‌.  پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 9 (1)، 17، 287-312. https://doi.org/ 10.22070/RSCI.2021.14558.1500
رحیمی، م.، و فتاحی، ر. (1386). همکاری علمی و تولید اطلاعات: نگاهی به مفاهیم و الگوهای رایج در تولید علمی مشترک. فصلنامه کتاب، 7، 238-245. https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/paper-abstract-1016646.html
رمضانی، ه.، علی‌پور حافظی، م.، و مؤمنی، ع. (1393). نقشه‌های علمی: فنون و روش‌ها. ترویج علم، 5 (6)، 53-84.. https://doi.org/ 20.1001.1.22519033.1393.5.1.4.1
زندیان، ف.،  مرادیان، ع.، و حسن‌زاده، م. (۱۳۹۸). تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی تحلیل شبکه همکاری علمی پژوهشگران حوزه پزشکی ایران با استفاده از شاخص‌های شبکه اجتماعی. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 5 (1)، 98-116. https://doi.org/: 10.22070/rsci.2018.716
سهیلی، ف.، شعبانی، ع.، و خاصه، ع.‌ا. (1394). ساختار فکری دانش در حوزه رفتار اطلاعاتی: مطالعه هم‌واژگانی. تعامل انسان و اطلاعات، 2 (4)، 21-36.  http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2446-fa.html
سهیلی، ف.، و عصاره، ف. (1392). مفاهیم مرکزیت و تراکم شبکه‌های علمی و اجتماعی. فصلنامه مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازمان‌دهی اطلاعات. 24 (3)، 92-108. http://46.209.25.211/article_64.html
صنعت‌جو، ا.، و فتحیان، ا. (1390). مقایسه‌ کارآمدی اصطلاح‌نامه و هستی‌شناسی در بازیابی مفاهیم موضوعی (مطالعه‌ موردی اصطلاح‌نامه اصفا). پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی. 1 (2)، 135-156. http://doi.org/10.22067/riis. v1i2.10005
عرفان‌منش، م.ا.، و روحانی، و. (1392). بررسی همبستگی میان شاخصه‌های اثرگذاری علمی و اجتماعی پژوهشگران: مطالعه موردی حوزه علم‌سنجی. کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 16 (4)، 145-171. https://lis.aqr-libjournal.ir/article_42414.html
عظیمی، م.ح، و دخش، س. (1400). مطالعه علم‌سنجی پژوهش‌های حوزه وب معنایی. علم‌سنجی کاسپین، 8 (1)، 30-43. http://cjs.mubabol.ac.ir/article-1-226-fa.html
قویدل، س.، ریاحی‌نیا، ن.، دانش، ف.، و نوروزی چاکلی، ع. (1401). هوافضا: مطالعه‌ علم‌سنجی و تحلیل سنجه‌های مرکزیت شبکه هم‌نویسندگی پژوهشگران. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی, (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2022.15902.1568
گویلی کیلانه، ن.، و کلوانی، ع. (1398). بررسی تحلیلی برون‌دادهای علمی پژوهشگران جهان با تأکید بر وضعیت تولیدات علمی در حوزه وب معنایی در پایگاه استنادی اسکوپوس طی سال‌های 1999 تا 2018. کنفرانس بین‌المللی وب‌‌پژوهی 4 و 5 اردیبهشت، تهران، ایران. https://civilica.com/doc/884004
محمدی کنگرانی، ح.، و غنچه‌پور، د. (1392). ترسیم و تحلیل شبکه روابط رسمی و غیررسمی درون‌سازمانی به روش تحلیل شبکه‌ای (مطالعه موردی: اداره کل منابع طبیعی استان هرمزگان). مجلهجنگل ایران، 5 (1)، 53-43. https://www.sid.ir/paper/123116/fa
نوچه ناسار، ح.ر.، شمس مورکانی، غ.ر.، و قانعی‌راد، م.ا. (1399). تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی هم‌تألیفی مقالات داخلی اعضای هیئت علمی رشته علوم تربیتی دانشگاه‌های دولتی شهر تهران. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 8 (2)، 16، 31- 52.  https://sid.ir/paper/1020976/fa
 
Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6 (3), 403- 412.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabasi, A. (1999). Internet: The diameter of the world wide web. Nature, 401, 130-131. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/43601
Azimi, M. H., & Dakhesh, S. (2021). Scientometric Study of Semantic Web Researches. CJS, 8 (1), 30-43. http://cjs.mubabol.ac.ir/article-1-226-fa.html [In Persian].
Badar, K., Hite, J., & Badir, Y. (2012). Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Scientometrics 94 (2), 755-775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0764-z
Baghaee, S., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2009). Co-authorship in Iranian Articles Published Inin ISI Journals (1989-2005) and Its Relationship Withwith Citation Toto the Articles. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 1(4), 11-21. https://dorl.net/dor 20.1001.1.20080840.1387.1.4.3.5 [In Persian].
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].
Bansal, M., Bansal, J., & Kumar, A. (2017). Semantic web research in India: A scientometric study of 2007-16. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 7(4), 253 https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-5576.2017.00034.6
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].
Brank, J., Grobelnic, M., & Mladenic, D. (2005). A survey of Ontology evaluation techniques. In Proceedings of the Conference on Data Mining and data Warehouses (SiKDD 2005). 17 October, Ljubljana, Sloveni. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228857266_A_survey_of_ontology_evaluation_techniques
Burt, R. (1992).  Structure Holes: The social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.com/books
Darko, A., Chan, A. P., Adabre, M. A., Edwards, D. J., Hosseini, M. R., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2020). Artificial intelligence in the AEC industry: Scientometric analysis and visualization of research activities. Automation in Construction, 112, 103081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103081
De Stefano, D., Giordano, G., & Vitale, M. (2011). Issues in the analysis of coauthorship networks. Quality & Quantity, 45(5), 1091–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9493-2
Erfan Menesh, M. A., & Rouhani, V. (2012). Investigating the correlation between the indicators of scientific and social effectiveness of researchers: a case study in the field of scientometrics. Library and information Sciences, 16(4), 145-171.  https://lis.aqr-libjournal.ir/article_42414.html?lang=en [In Persian].
Fencel, D. (2004). Ontology: A silver bulletfor knowledge management and electronic commerce, berlin: springer. https://books.google.com/books?id=_BIwfsxNbU4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Ghavidel, S., Rihiniya, N., Danesh, F., & Noroozi Chakoli, A. (2022). Aerospace: The study of scientometrics and an analysis of centrality indicators of the co-authorship network of researchers. Scientometrics Research Journal, (Preprint). https://doi.org/ 10.22070/rsci.2022.15902.1568 [In Persian].
González-Teruel, A., González-Alcaide, G., Barrios, M., &Abad-García, M. (2015). Mapping recent information behavior research: an analysis of co-authorship and cocitation networks. Scientometrics, 103)2(, 687–705. https://civilica.com/doc/884004
Govili Kilane, N., & Kelvani, A. (2018). Analytical review of the scientific outputs of world researchers with an emphasis on the status of scientific productions in the field of semantic web in the Scopus reference database during the years 1999 to 2018. [International Web Research Conference on April 4 and 5], Tehran: Iran. https://civilica.com/doc/884004 [In Persian].
Hanneman, R., A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California. Chapter 1, Social Network Data. https://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman
Hasanzadeh, P., Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A., Soheili, F., & Mousavi Chalak, A. (2018). Co-authorship and the Relationship between Social Influence and the Extent of Effectiveness and Productivity of Re-searchers in Domain of Chronic Cardiovas-cular Failure. Scientometrics Research Journal, 4(2), 143-160. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2018.617 [In Persian].
Hassanzadeh Dizaji, E., Osareh, F., Tavakoli Farrash, L., & Esmaeil Pounaki, E. (2022). Co-authorship and Co-occurrence Network Structure Analysis of Iranian Researchers on Quality of Life Using Social Networks Analysis. Scientometrics Research Journal, 8(15), 123-146. https://doi.org/ 10.22070/rsci.2020.5766.1425 [In Persian].
Henriksen, D. (2016). The rises in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476. https://doi.org/‌10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x
Hill, V. A. (2008). Collaboration in an academic setting: Does the network structure matter? Center for the Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems.Available at: http://ra.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/usr/ftp/anon/isr2008/CMU-ISR-08-128.pdf
Hosseini Beheshti, M. S., Khoeini, S., & Esmaeil Pounaki, E. (2023). Bibliometrics Study and Network Analysis of Co-authorship and Thematic Clusters of Ontology Researches. Scientometrics Research Journal, 9, Issue 1, (spring & summer), 287-312. https://doi.org/ 10.22070/RSCI.2021.14558.1500 [In Persian].
Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2008). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1771-3
Kumar, S., Jan, J. M. (2013). Mapping Research Collaborations in the Business and Management Field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics, 97, 491–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0994-8
Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Coauthorship networks in the digital library research community. Information processing & management, 41(6), 1462-1480.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012
Mohammadi Kangrani, H., & Ghanchepour, D. (2013). Delineation and analysis of intra organizational formal and informal relationships through network analysis (Case study: Natural resources organization of Hormozgan province). Iranian Journal of Forest, 5(1), 43-5. https://dio.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9493-2 [In Persian].
Ni, P., An, X. (2018). Relationship between international collaboration papers and their citations from an economic perspective.  Scientometrics, Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), 863-877, August.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2784-9
Noche Nasar, H. R., Shams, G. R., & Ghanei Rad, M. A. (2022). Analysis of the Social Network of Co-Authorship of Internal Articles of Faculty Members in the Field of Educational Sciences of Governmental Universities in Tehran. Scientometrics Research Journal, 8(2), 31-52. https://sid.ir/paper/1020976/fa [In Persian].
Osareh, F., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). Iranian scientific publications: Collaboration, growth, and development from 1985 to 1999. [In 8th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics proceedings], ISSI-2001, pp. 499-509.
Ovalle-Perandones, M. A., Gorraiz, J., Wieland, M., Gumpenberger, C., & Olmeda-Gómez, C. (2013). The influence of European Framework Programmes on scientific collaboration in nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 97(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1028-2
Rahimi, M., & Fattahi, R. (2007). Scientific collaboration and information production: a glance at concepts and current models of co-authorship. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies, 18(3), 235-248. https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/paper-abstract-1016646.html [In Persian].
Ramezani, H., Alipour-Hafezi, M., & Momeni, E. (2014). Scientific Maps: Methods and Techniques. Popularization of Science, 5(1), 53-84. https://doi.org/‌20.1001.1.22519033.1393.5.1.4.1 [In Persian].
Sanatjoo, A., & Fathian, A. (2011). The Comparison of efficiency of Thesaurus vs. Ontology in Concepts Retrieval. Library and Information Science Research, 1(2),135-156. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.vriis. v1i2.10005 [In Persian].
Sohaili, F., Shaban, A., & Khase, A. (2015). Intellectual Structure of Knowledge in Information Behavior: A Co-Word Analysis. Human Information Interaction, 2 (4), 21-36. ‌http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2446-fa.html [In Persian].
Soheili, F., & Osareh, F. (2013). Concepts of Centrality and Density in Scientific and Social Networks. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies, 24(3), 92-108. http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2446-fa.html [In Persian].
Tajedini, O., Soheili, F., & Sadatmoosavi, A. (2019). The Centrality Measures in Co-authorship Networks: Synergy or Antagonism in Researchers’ Research Performance, 34 (3), 1423-1452. http://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-3378-fa.html [In Persian].
Wang, T., Zhang, Q., Liu Zh, Liu W., & Wen D. (2012). On social computing research collaboration patterns: a social network perspective. Front Comput Sci, 6(1), 30 - 122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-011-1173-9
Wasserman S, Galaskiewicz, j. (1994). Advances in social network analysis: research in the social and behavioral science. Thousand oaks: sage. 1994 Johnson113-151.pdf (qualquant.org)
Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 60(10), 2107-2118. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21128
Yan, E., Ding, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2010). Mapping Library and Information Science in China: a coauthorship network analysis Scientometrics, 83 (1), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0027-9
Yin, L., Kretschmer, H., Hanneman, R.A., & Liu, Z. (2006). Connection and stratification in research collaboration: an analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing & Management‌. 42, 1599-1613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.021
Zandian, F., Moradian, A., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2019). Analyzing Scientific Collaboration among Iranian Medical Researchers Using Social Network Indicators. Scientometrics Research Journal, 5(9), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2018.716 [In Persian].
Zhong, B., Wu, H., Li, H., Sepasgozar, S., Luo, H., & He, L. (2019). A scientometric analysis and critical review of construction related ontology research. Automation in Construction, 101, 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.013

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics