صدیقی، م. (1393). بررسی کاربرد روش تحلیل همرخدادی واژگان در ترسیم ساختار حوزههای علمی (مطالعه موردی حوزه علمسنجی).
پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات.
30(2)، 373-396.
https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2015.040
مهدیزاده، م. (1401). فراتحلیل کیفی مقالههای علمی در زمینه بهرهوری اعضای هیئت علمی در ایران.
نامه آموزشعالی، 15(58)، 52-31.
https://journal.sanjesh.org/article_254274.html
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity?.
Scientometrics,
101, 1129-1144.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8
Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C., & Di Costa, F. (2008). Assessment of sectoral aggregation distortion in research productivity measurements.
Research Evaluation,
17(2), 111-121.
https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X280916
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories.
Sage Open,
9(1), 2158244019829575.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
Alfirevic, N., Pavicic, J., & Rendulic, D. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of public business school scientific productivity and impact in South-east Europe (2017-2021).
The South East European Journal of Economics and Business,
18(1), 27-45.
https://doi.org/10.2478/jeb-2023-0003
Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity.
American sociological review, 469-478.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095801
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis.
Journal of informetrics,
11(4), 959-975.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Wright, M. (2014). Technology transfer in a global economy.
The Journal of Technology Transfer,
39, 301-312.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9283-6
Baccini, A., Barabesi, L., Cioni, M., & Pisani, C. (2014). Crossing the hurdle: the determinants of individual scientific performance.
Scientometrics,
101, 2035-2062.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1395-3
Bak, H. J., & Kim, D. H. (2019). The unintended consequences of performance-based incentives on inequality in scientists’ research performance.
Science and Public Policy,
46(2), 219-231.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy052
Baker, D. R. (1991). On-line bibliometric analysis for researchers and educators.
Journal of Social Work Education,
27(1), 41-47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1991.10672168
Ball, P. (2005). Index aims for fair ranking of scientists.
Nature,
436(7053), 900.
https://doi.org/10.1038/436900a
Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?. Scientometrics, 68(1), 179-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4
Ben-Porath, Y. (1967). The production of human capital and the life cycle of earnings. Political economy, 75(4), 352-365. https://www.ntaccounts.org/doc/repository/Ben-Porath_paper.pdf
Bicheng, D., Adnan, N., Harji, M. B., & Ravindran, L. (2023). Evolution and hotspots of peer instruction: a visualized analysis using CiteSpace.
Education and Information Technologies,
28(2), 2245-2262.
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00110.2018
Bland, C. J., Seaquist, E., Pacala, J. T., Center, B., & Finstad, D. (2002). One school's strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty.
Academic Medicine,
77(5), 368-376. https://doi.org/
10.1097/00001888-200205000-00004
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?.
Scientometrics,
65, 391-392.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0281-4
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior.
Journal of documentation,
64(1), 45-80.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
Bright, L. K. (2017). Decision theoretic model of the productivity gap.
Erkenntnis,
82, 421-442.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-016-9826-6
Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.0377.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1305.0377
Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256(2), 119-125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24979323
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973).
Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/226571
Corallo, A., Latino, M. E., Menegoli, M., De Devitiis, B., & Viscecchia, R. (2019). Human factor in food label design to support consumer healthcare and safety: A systematic literature review.
Sustainability,
11(15), 4019.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154019
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective.
Journal of the association for information science and technology,
66(10), 2003-2019.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309
Courtial, J. (1994). A coword analysis of scientometrics.
Scientometrics,
31(3), 251-260.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016875
Creswell, J. W. (1985).
Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the Sciences and the Social Sciences. Washington: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
https://www.amazon.com/Faculty-Research-Performance-Sciences-EDUCATION/dp/0913317233
Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h‐index to rank influential information scientistss.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology,
57(9), 1275-1278.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20354
Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education.
Research in higher education,
39(6), 607-631.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018705823763
Egghe, L. (2006b). Theory and practise of the g-index.
Scientometrics.
69(1), 131-152.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Kruijsen, J., White, P. C., & Trevitt, C. (2013). Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management.
Environmental Conservation,
40(1), 19-36.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291200029X
Ferreira, C., Bastille‐Rousseau, G., Bennett, A. M., Ellington, E. H., Terwissen, C., Austin, C., & Murray, D. L. (2016). The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?.
Biological Reviews,
91(3), 597-610.
https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12185
Fonseca, L., Velloso, S., Wofchuk, S., & de Meis, L. (1997). The importance of human relationships in scientific productivity.
Scientometrics,
39(2), 159-171.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02457445
Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review.
Social studies of science,
13(2), 285-305.
https://doi.org/10.1177/030631283013002005
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas.
Science,
122(3159), 108-111.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies.
Science,
178(4060), 471-479.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471
Geng, Y., Zhang, N., & Zhu, R. (2023). Research progress analysis of sustainable smart grid based on CiteSpace.
Energy Strategy Reviews,
48, 101111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101111
Glänzel, W. (2006). On the h-index-A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact.
Scientometrics,
67(2), 315-321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0102-4
Godin, B. (2009). The value of science: changing conceptions of scientific productivity, 1869 to circa 1970.
Social Science Information,
48(4), 547-586.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409344475
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison.
Scientometrics,
106, 787-804.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems.
Research policy,
41(2), 251-261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics.
Nature,
520(7548), 429-431.
https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Hirsch, I., Milwitt, W., & Oakes, W. J. (1958). Increasing the productivity of scientists.
Harvard Business Review,
36(2), 66-76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457402
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output.
Proceedings of the National academy of Sciencessciences,
102(46), 16569-16572.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Holden, G., Rosenberg, G., & Barker, K. (2005). Bibliometrics: A potential decision makingdecision-making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions.
Social work in health care,
41(3-4), 67-92.
https://doi.org/10.1300 / J010v41n03_03
Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth, S. (2011). Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity.
Kyklos,
64(4), 534-555.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2011.00519.x
Hu, A. G., Jefferson, G. H., & Jinchang, Q. (2005). R&D and technology transfer: firm-level evidence from Chinese industry.
Review of Economics and Statistics,
87(4), 780-786.
https://doi.org/10.1162/003465305775098143
Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A. L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
117(9), 4609-4616.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117
Isohanni, M., Isohanni, I., & Veijola, J. (2002). How should a scientific team be effectively formed and managed.
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry,
56(2), 157-162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/080394802753617999
Ivancheva, L. (2008). Scientometrics today: A methodological overview.
Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management,
2(2), 47-56.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2008.10700853
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration?
Research policy,
26(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
21(4), 167-170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.005
Kim, M. C., & Zhu, Y. (2018). Scientometrics of scientometrics: mapping historical footprint and emerging technologies in scientometrics.
Scientometrics,
1, 9-27.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77951.
Klein, W. C., & Bloom, M. (1992). Studies of scholarly productivity in social work using citation analysis.
Journal of Social Work Education,
28(3), 291-299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1992.10778782
Kreuger, L. W. (1993). Should there be a moratorium on articles that rank schools of social work based on faculty publications? Yes!.
Journal of Social Work Education,
29(3), 240-245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1993.10778820
Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Ceballos, H. G., & Cantú-Ortiz, F. J. (In press). Factors that influence scientific productivity from different countries: A causal approach through multiple regression using panel data.
BioRxiv. Retrieved 2019, june, 25, from
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/02/25/558254.full.pdf
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
66(7), 1323-1332.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science.
Nature,
504(7479), 211-213.
https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity.
Social studies of science,
35(5), 673-702.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359
Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures.
Nature,
444(7122), 1003-1004.
https://doi.org/10.1038/4441003a
Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists.
The American economic review, 114-132.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006790
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity.
Journal of the Washington academy of sciences,
16(12), 317-323.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24529203
Mahdizadeh, M. (2022). Qualitative meta-analysis of scientific articles related to faculty members' productivity in Iran.
Higher Education Letter,
15(58), 31-52.
https://journal.sanjesh.org/article_254274.html [In Persian].
Mairesse, J., & Turner, L. (2010). Measurement and explanation of the intensity of co-publication in scientific research: An analysis at the laboratory level [working paper]. National Bureau of Economic Research. July, 11172.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w11172
Mali, F., Pustovrh, T., Platinovšek, R., Kronegger, L., & Ferligoj, A. (2017). The effects of funding and co-authorship on research performance in a small scientific community.
Science and Public Policy,
44(4), 486-496.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw076
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories.
Journal of informetrics,
12(4), 1160-1177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar.
Journal of the american society for information science and technology,
58(13), 2105-2125.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Milat, A. J., Bauman, A. E., & Redman, S. (2015). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods.
Health Research Policy and Systems,
13, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1
Miller, J. C., Coble, K. H., & Lusk, J. L. (2013). Evaluating top faculty researchers and the incentives that motivate them.
Scientometrics,
97, 519-533.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0987-7
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis.
Scientometrics,
106, 213-228.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review.
Research evaluation,
23(1), 21-32.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt021
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
https://www.R-project.org/
Racherla, P., & Hu, C. (2010). A social network perspective of tourism research collaborations.
Annals of Tourism Research,
37(4), 1012-1034.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.03.008
Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity.
Higher education,
28(2), 207-226.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383729
Ravikumar, S., Agrahari, A., & Singh, S. N. (2015). Mapping the intellectual structure of scientometrics: A co-word analysis of the journal Scientometrics (2005–2010).
Scientometrics,
102, 929-955.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1402-8
Reskin, B. F. (1978). Scientific productivity, sex, and location in the institution of science. American Journal of Sociology, 83(5), 1235-1243. https://doi/abs/10.1086/226681 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1086/226681
Schnitzler, K., Davies, N., Ross, F., & Harris, R. (2016). Using Twitter™ to drive research impact: a discussion of strategies, opportunities and challenges.
International journal of nursing studies,
59, 15-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.02.004
Sedighi, M. (2014). Using Co-word Analysis Method in Mapping of the Structure of Scientific Fields (Case Study: The Field of Informetrics),
Iranian Journal of Information Processing & Management,
30 (2), 373-396.
https://doi.org/ 10.35050/JIPM010.2015.040 [In Persian].
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.
Bmj,
314(7079), 497.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
Shin, J., & Cummings, W. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research.
Scientometrics,
85(2), 581-594.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0236-2
Spaapen, J., & Van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment.
Research evaluation,
20(3), 211-218.
https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876742
Tangen, S. (2005). Demystifying productivity and performance.
International Journal of Productivity and performance management,
54(1), 34-46.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400510571437
Tao, Y., & Lin, P. H. (2023). Analyses of Sustainable Development of Cultural and Creative Parks: A Pilot Study Based on the Approach of CiteSpace Knowledge Mapping.
Sustainability,
15(13), 10489.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310489
Thyer, B. A., & Bentley, K. J. (1986). Academic affiliations of social work authors: A citation analysis of six major journals.
Journal of Social Work Education,
22(1), 67-73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1986.10671731
Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity: Measure refinement and theory testing.
The Journal of Higher Education,
67(1), 2-22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1996.11780246
Tootoonchi, M., Yamani, N., Changiz, T., Taleghani, F., & Mohammadzadeh, Z. (2014). Assessment of educational criteria in academic promotion: Perspectives of faculty members of medical sciences universities in Iran.
Journal of education and health promotion,
3. https://doi.org/
10.4103/2277-9531.131893
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping.
scientometrics,
84(2), 523-538.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Van Raan, A. F. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups.
scientometrics,
67, 491-502.
https://doi.org/10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.10
Vinkler, P. (2017). The size and impact of the elite set of publications in scientometric assessments.
Scientometrics,
110, 163-177.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2165-1
Wang, X., Wang, Z., & Xu, S. (2013). Tracing scientist’s research trends realtimely.
Scientometrics,
95, 717-729.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0884-5
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle.
American sociological review, 847-870.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-03313-006
Yang, W., Wang, S., Chen, C., Leung, H. H., Zeng, Q., & Su, X. (2022). Knowledge mapping of enterprise network research in China: a visual analysis using CiteSpace.
Frontiers in Psychology,
13, 898538.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.898538
Zerem, E. (2017). The ranking of scientists based on scientific publications assessment.
Journal of Biomedical Informatics,
75, 107-109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.10.007
