Multi-Authored Articles and the Real Contribution of the Researcher in the Convergence of Writing with the Three-Dimensional Measurement CAWH: Aerospace Engineering Field

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Knowledge and Information Science, Knowledge Manager Expert at Informatics Services Corporation (ISC); Vice Presidency for Innovation, Planning, and Research, Tehran, Iran.

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

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

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

Abstract

Purpose: Today, researchers encounter challenges in scientific collaboration and the alignment of results with their peers. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of identification and the extent of researchers' genuine participation in the convergence of multi-authored articles written by aerospace researchers, utilizing the three-dimensional Collaborative Author Writing Hierarchy (CAWH). Author associativity is a concept closely linked to scientific collaboration and multi-authored publications. The complexity of knowledge and the increasing demand for specialization and interdisciplinary skills have shaped scientific participation. Aerospace researchers and specialists are pivotal in conducting scientific and industrial research within the aerospace sector, focusing on technology development and providing support and guidance to fellow researchers. The aerospace industry is multi-faceted, strategic, and dynamic, possessing significant potential for wealth generation, economic development, enhancing national competitiveness on the global stage, job creation, and export opportunities. In various fields of study, numerous indicators have been established for observing, monitoring, and quantitatively and qualitatively evaluating researchers' publications, leading to the introduction of diverse metrics accordingly.
Methodology: The research is applied in nature and employs an analytical approach. To assess the improvement in accurately identifying the author's true contributions in published articles, a composite measure that examines multiple dimensions has been utilized. The research outputs of aerospace researchers were analyzed, drawing on data categorized under "Engineering, Aerospace" in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). English-language articles published from 1945 to 2021 were extracted for this study. Data extraction was conducted on February 4, 2022, a Friday. The current research community encompasses all aerospace researchers from 1945 to 2021, comprising 153,994 records indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). The total number of authors is 161,156, of whom 154,450 researchers with identifiable names (without sampling) were examined. The total number of citations is 2,617,712. Data extracted from the scientific website during the research period were analyzed. In this research, two tools, namely the "MiMFa Scraper, were employed to gather detailed information about each author. Additionally, another tool was utilized to match the gauge information with PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor). This tool is considered part of the DataLab software suite. Ravar PreMap software was also used to standardize the data. To normalize the data, the codes developed in the DataLab software were implemented. Excel 2016 was also utilized to extract data from various websites using PHP. The CAWH measure is defined as the average number of weighted citations based on co-author credit for a researcher.
Findings: The results of the H-weighted co-authorship index indicate "Florian Menter" (from ANSYS Germany GmbH), "Chae M. Rhie" (from Raytheon Technologies USA), "Philippe R. Spalart" (from Boeing), "Edward F. Crawley" (from Massachusetts (from the Institute of Technology (MIT)), "Irving Reed" (from university (from Southern California) are in rank fifth ranks of among based on the CAWH index. This measure was used to calculate the utilizing assessment of each author in writing a multi-author article.
Conclusion: The emphasis on recognizing researchers' contributions in article writing will be beneficial and effective for both researchers and the scientific community. Acknowledging researchers' involvement in writing allows them to showcase their contributions and achievements fairly and transparently. This approach enables researchers to properly receive their scientific credit and build their reputation, thereby gaining a competitive advantage within scientific communities. Within research teams, the implementation of this measure will enhance collaboration, facilitate the division of labor, and more equitably determine the rights and benefits of each team member. This approach fosters active collaboration and enhances the productivity of research teams. It enables research organizations and universities to conduct more accurate scientific evaluations of individuals and allocate resources based on equitable distribution and participation. Additionally, this method can improve transparency and build trust within research organizations. Consequently, it can help cultivate a culture of participation and cooperation within scientific communities. This approach can foster healthy, justice-oriented competition in science and enhance the quality of research. The evaluation offers readers and the scientific community detailed information about the authors and their collaborators involved in the research. This transparency enables readers to better assess the contributions and expertise of the article’s authors, thereby increasing their trust in the results and citations presented. Overall, acknowledging the participation of researchers in writing articles supports the scientific process and advances the field of science. This approach offers guidance for justice, transparency, cooperation, and the enhancement of research quality within scientific communities. It fosters an environment conducive to scientific development and progress, which can be assessed and refined using the index introduced in this study.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

احتشامی، خ. (1398). پایتون در علم داده، چرا پایتون بهترین گزینه برای علم داده است. دانشجو یار، https://zaya.io/5dy34  (24 دی 1399).
باشکوه، ا.، اکرامی، م.، سهیلی، ف.، و کریمی دشتکی، ا. (1399). مطالعه‌ی اثرات راهبردهای هم تألیفی 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
جلال زاده عصر جدیدی، س.، بیگلو، م.، و رفیع، ع. (1390). بررسی اثر متیو بر تولیدات علمی دانشگاه‌های علوم پزشکی ایران بر اساس رابطه Power-law در فاصله زمانی پنج سال در پایگاه وب‌آو‌ساینس (ویژه‌نامه علم‌سنجی). پژوهش‌نامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 26(۴)، ۱۱۰۶-۱۱۲۰.  
    https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699091.html?lang=fa
دانش، ف.، رشیدی، و.، و میرزایی، م. (1392). ردپای جهانی‌شدن بر شاخص‌های تولید علم و فناوری. پژوهش‌نامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 3(2)، 11-26. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v3i1.12082
رحیمی شعرباف، غ. (1399). انتشار کتاب و مقاله، از مؤلفه‌های اصلی تولید علم. عتف (ماهنامه علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری)، 40، 1-58.
    https://www.atf.gov.ir/Content/media/filepool3/2020/10/266.pdf?t=637379369862605000
ستوده، ه.، و یقطین، م. (1394). بررسی بهره‌وری علمی پژوهشگران ایرانی در رشته‌های مختلف بر اساس شاخص سرانه انتشار در بازه زمانی 1991-2011. مطالعات کتابداری و علم اطلاعات، 7(15)، 92- 65.  
    https://doi.org/10.22055/slis.2015.11319
شایان مجد، م.، و اسدی، س. (1395). زمینه‌یابی ایجاد واحدهای علم‌سنجی در کتابخانه‌های دانشگاهی بر اساس مدل SWOT، موردمطالعه: کتابخانه‌های دانشگاهی شهر مشهد. پژوهش‌نامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 6(1)، 203-222. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v6i1.46540
شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی (1391). سند جامع توسعه هوافضای کشور، 1-24.
    https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/838896
عبداللهی، ح. (1391). چالش‌های سنجش بهره‌وری آموزشی اعضای هیئت‌علمی دانشگاه‌ها. فصلنامه اندازه‌گیری تربیتی، 2(7)، 139-170. https://jem.atu.ac.ir/article_5628.html
علی بیگی، ا. (1386). تحلیل بهره‌وری پژوهشی اعضای هیئت‌علمی: مطالعه موردی دانشگاه رازی. فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی. 13(۴)، ۱۲۵-۱۵۴. https://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article_702608.html
فروغی، ز.، طهماسبی لیمونی، ص.، و قیاسی، م. (1399). مروری بر وضعیت شاخص‌های علم‌سنجی و انتخاب شاخص ارزیابی بروندادهای علمی در حوزه علوم پزشکی. تعالی بالینی، 9(۴)، ۲۳-۳۳.
    https://ce.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-498-fa.html
کاویانی، م. (1401). یادگیری ماشین و یادگیری عمیق با زبان های پایتون و R. تهران: موسسه فرهنگی هنری دیباگران تهران. https://ketab.ir/book/71d33b34-fc15-4847-aeb7-8e51922623c8
گلینی مقدم، گ.، و طاهری، پ. (1394). ترسیم شبکه هم‌نویسندگی و ضریب همکاری علمی پژوهشگران ایرانی در حوزه هوافضا در نمایه استنادی علوم تا 2014 میلادی. فصلنامه بازیابی دانش و نظام‌های معنایی، 2(3)، 23-42. https://jks.atu.ac.ir/article_1606.html?lang=fa
معصوم گسکره، ی. (1396). تحلیل بهره‌وری پژوهشی اعضای هیئت‌علمی گروه‌های شیمی دانشگاه‌های تهران بر اساس شاخص‌های علم‌سنجی [پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد منتشرنشده]. دانشگاه شاهد.
    http://lib.shahed.ac.ir/web/guest/independent
میرزایی، ن.، و نوروزی چاکلی، ع. (1397). ارزیابی بهره‌وری پژوهشی اعضای هیئت‌علمی گروه‌های علم اطلاعات و دانش‌‌شناسی دانشگاه‌های دولتی شهر تهران با استفاده از شاخص‌های چندگانه. پژوهش‌نامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 8(1)، 5-28. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v7i2.54625
نوروزی چاکلی، ع.، و رضایی، م. (1393). شناسایی و اعتبارسنجی شاخص‌های ارزیابی بهره‌وری پژوهشی پژوهشگران ایران. پژوهش‌نامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، ۳۰ (۱)، ۳-۳۹.  
    https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2015.049
وزیری، ا.، و رجبعلی بگلو، ر. (1389). مهندسی هوافضای ایران و جهان در آینه علم‌سنجی: مطالعه‌ای در پایگاه‌های استنادی. دهمین همایش انجمن هوافضای ایران، تهران، ایران (10 تا 12 اسفند 1389).  
    https://civilica.com/doc/134766
Abdollahi, H. (2013). Challenges of measuring the educational efficiency of university faculty members. Educational Measurement Quarterly, 2(7), 139-170.
      https://jem.atu.ac.ir/article_5628.html [In Persian].
Academic authorship (2017). In Wikipedia.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic authorship. (Accessed November 3, 2021).
Akakandelwa, A. (2009). Author collaboration and productivity at the University of Zambia, 2002-2007. African Journal of Library, Archive & Information Science, 19(1),13-23. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajlais/article/view/42873
Alibeygi, A. (2008). An Analysis of the Research Productivity of Faculty Members: The Case of Razi University. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 13(4), 125-154. https://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article_702608.html [In Persian].
Banks, M. G. (2006). An extension of the Hirsch index: Indexing scientific topics and compounds. Scientometrics, 69(1), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0146-5
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(2), 79-102. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.4471.1294 [In Persian].
Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?, Scientometrics, 68(1), 179-89.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4
Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualising research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 889-903. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903348404
Besancenot, D., Huynh, K., & Serranito, F. (2017).  Co-authorship and research productivity in economics: Assessing the assortative matching hypothesis. Journal of Economic Modelling, 66, 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2017.05.018
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(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 diferent variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20806
Chia, V. S. (2020). New metrics for assessing high-quality researchers [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Queensland University of Technology. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/205722/
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 comparativo y caracterización. index.comunicación, 10(3), 235-261.
      https://doi.org/10.33732/ixc/10/03Usodes
Danesh, F., Rashidi, V., & Mirzaie, M. (2014). Globalization Footprint on Indices of Science and Technology Production. Library and Information Science Research, 3(2), 11-26.
      https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v3i1.12082 [In Persian].
De Stefano, 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
Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity : Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.008
Desai, M., Mehta, R. G., & Rana, D. P. (2023). ScholarRec: a scholars' recommender system that combines scholastic influence and social collaborations in academic social networks. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 16(2), 203-2016.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-022-00345-w
Ehteshami, k. (2018). Python in data science, why Python is the best choice for data science, Daneshjooyar. https://zaya.io/5dy34 (13 January 2021) [In Persian].
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
Elsevier. (n.d.)(2019). Retrieved June 09, 2019, from https://www.elsevier.com/journals/life- sciences/00243205/guide-for-authors.
Fanelli, D., & Larivière, V. (2016). Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century. PLOS ONE, 11(3), p. e0149504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149504
Foroughi, Z., Tahmasabi Limooni, S., & Ghiasi, M. (2019). A Review of the status of existing scientific index and selection of the most appropriate index for valuation of scientific outputs in the field of medical sciences. Clinical excellence, 9(4), 23-33.
      https://ce.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-498-fa.html [In Persian].
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?lang=en [In Persian].
Ganguli, R. (2008). A scientometric analysis of recent aerospace research. Current Science, 95(12), 1670-1672. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24105322
Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Of Nobel class: A citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine, 13(2), 117-135.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02163625
Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus/Kexue Guancha, 1(1), 10–11.
      https://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~tonta/courses/spring2011/bby704/H_Index_opprtunities.pdf
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
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. Hand book 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
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Hirsch, J. E. (2019). hα: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific leadership. Scientometrics, 118(2), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2994-1
Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 153-158. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.10.3.153
Islamic Parliament Research Center of The Islamic Republic of IRAN (1391). Comprehensive document on the country's aerospace development: 1-24.
      https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/838896 [In Persian].
Jalalzadeh Asrejadidi, S., Biglu, M. H., & Rafi, A. (2011). The Study of "Matthew Effect" on Science Productions of Iranian Medical Universities on the basis of "Power- law Relationship" in a Five Year Period in the Web of Science. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 26(4), 1106-1120.
      https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699091.html?lang=en [In Persian].
Khasseh, A. A., Soheili, F., Mousavi Chelak, A. (2017). Co-authorship Network Analysis of iMetrics Researchers. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 1946, 1-17.
      https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1496/
Kaviani, M. (2022). Machine Learning and Deep Learning with Python and R. Tehran: Dibaqaran Tehran Cultural and Artistic Institute.
      https://ketab.ir/book/71d33b34-fc15-4847-aeb7-8e51922623c8 [In Persian].
Kuzhabekova, A. (2011). Impact of Co-Authorship Strategies on Research Productivity: a Social-Network Analysis on Publication in RUSSIAN Cardiology [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. University of Minnesota. https://hdl.handle.net/11299/108109
Masoum Goskere, Y. (2016). Analysis of research productivity of faculty members of chemistry departments of Tehran universities based on scientometric indicators [Unpulished master dissertation]. Shahid University. http://lib.shahed.ac.ir/web/guest/independent  [In Persian].
Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C. J., & Laget, P. (2011). Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics, 87(1), 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0310-9
Mazloumian, A. (2012). Predicting scholars scientific impact. PLOS ONE, 7(11),P. e49246.  https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0049246
Mazurek, J. (2018). A modifcation to Hirsch index allowing comparisons across diferent scientifc felds. Current Science, 114: 2238–2239. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05485
McIlroy-Young, R., McLevey, J., & Anderson, J. (2015). metaknowledge: open source software for social networks, bibliometrics, and sociology of knowledge research.
      https://metaknowledge.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ (13 July 2021)
Mirzaee, N., & Noroozi Chakoli, A. (2018). Evaluation of the Research Productivity of Faculty Members of Knowledge and Information Science Departments of State Universities of Tehran by Using Multiple indicators. Library and Information Science Research, 8(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v7i2.54625 [In Persian].
Mohammad Javed, A. (2021). Questioning the Impact of the Impact Factor. A Brief Review and Future Directions. Seminars in Ophthalmology, 91-96.
      https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2021.1922713
Noroozi Chakoli, A., & Rezaei, M. (2014). Scientometrics, International Special Indexes, scientific productivity evaluation. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 30(1), 3-39. https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2015.049 [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, Stockholm, Sweden.  (24-28 July 2005).
      www.issi-society.org/proceedings/issi_2005/Osareh_ISSI2005.pdf
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). https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v10.830
Perry, M., & Reny, P. J. (2016). How to count citations if you must. American Economic Review, 106(9), 2722–2741. https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140850
PHP (2022). php.net. www.php.net/ (January 2, 2022)
Rahimi Shearbaf, G. h. (2019). Publication of books and articles is one of the main components of science production. Ataf (Monthly of Science, Research and Technology), 40, 1-58.
      https://www.atf.gov.ir/Content/media/filepool3/2020/10/266.pdf?t=637379369862605000 [In Persian].
Ramsden, P. (1994), Describing and Explaining Research Productivity, Higher Education, 28(2), 207-215. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01383729
Ransdell, L. B., Dinger, M. K., Cooke, C., & Beske, S. (2001). Factors related to publication productivity in a sample of female health educators. American journal of health behavior, 25(5), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.25.5.4
Rousseau, R., & Ye, F. Y. (2008). A proposal for a dynamic h-type index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1853–1855.
      https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20890
SadatMoosavi, A., Nooshinfard, F., Hariri, N., & Esmaeil, S. (2018). Does the superior position of countries in co-authorship networks lead to their high citation performance. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 23(1), 51-65.
      https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol23no1.4
Sahel, J. A. (2011). Quality versus quantity: assessing individual research performance. Science Translational Medicine, 3(84). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249
Schreiber, M. (2008). A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 211-216.
      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001
Schreiber, M. (2008). To Share the Fame in a Fair Way, Hm Modifies the H for Multi-Authored Manuscripts, New Journal of Physics, 10(4), p. 040201.
      https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201
Shayan Majd, M., & Asadi, S. (2016). A Survey on the Establishment of Scientometrics Departments in the Iranian Academic Libraries Based on the SWOT Model: A Case Study of Mashhad Academic Libraries. Library and Information Science Research, 6(1), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v6i1.46540 [In Persian].
Solomon, J. (2009). Programmers, professors, and parasites: Credit and co-authorship in computer science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 467-89.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9119-4
Sotudeh, H., & Yaghtin, M. (2015). A study of scientific productivity of Iranian researchers in different disciplines based on publication per capita indicator during 1991-2011. Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science, 7(15), 65-92.
      https://doi.org/10.22055/slis.2015.11319 [In Persian].
Springer Nature Publishing AG. (n.d.)(2019). Retrieved June 09, 2019, from www.nature.com/srep/journal-policies/editorial-policies#author- responsibilities.
Stanzione, K. A. (2019). Aerospace engineering. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at:
     https://www.britannica.com/technology/aerospace-engineering (April 25, 2021).
Tol, R. S. J. (2008). A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 149-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.01.001
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2008). Generalizing the h- and g-indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.004
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, A., Rajabali Baglo, R. (2010). Aerospace engineering of Iran and the world in the mirror of scientology: a study in citation databases. The 10th conference of Iran Aerospace Society, Tehran, Iran (March 10-12, 2010). https://civilica.com/doc/134766/ [In Persian].
WOSCC  (Web of Science Core Collection)(2024). Web of Science Core Collection Help.
https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_subject_category_terms_tasca.
html
Yaminfrooz, M., Gholinia, H. (2015). Multiple h-index: A new scientometric indicator. Electronic Library, 33(3), 547-556. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/EL-07-2013-0137
Yan, E., Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A co-authorship network analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2107-2118. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21128
Zhang, C. T. (2009). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS One, 4(5), p. e5429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005429

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics