Analyzing scientific authority: an approach based on scientific mapping -

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to identify the world's leaders in the field of "scientific authority" and to explain the areas that are emphasized at the international level in obtaining scientific authority.
Methodology: The research method was survey-cross-sectional and of an applied type, and the research approach, scientometrics, and the subject of the research was to draw scientific maps of the field of scientific reference based on 482 records of the Web of Science citation database (between 1981-2023).
Findings: In order to analyze scientific authority, 10 topic clusters were identified based on the co-occurrence map. The topics of scientific authority, climate change, science, nanotechnology, trust, and framing have created the most links between map concepts. According to the presented density map, the two subjects of scientific authority and climate change were the core and hot subjects, and most of the research activity in their field is being conducted. Three concepts: “Risk perception”, “public understanding of science” and “science communication” were close to the core of scientific authority in the density map. Therefore, scientists must overcome these three challenges to reach scientific authority in their field of knowledge. Cultural authority of science is a precursor to acquiring scientific authority. By legitimizing the opinions of thinkers among the general public, public understanding of science improves.With the increase of public trust about the role of science and technology in solving the basic problems and challenges of society, science will be accepted by the society as a responsible authority for solving problems. In the map of scientific authority, the fields of boundary work, public health, genetics, citizen science and climate change are immature. Scientists in these fields still do not have the necessary scientific authority to gain scientific authority, and as they should, they have not been able to gain public trust. Cluster 10 covered the concepts of citizen science and science communication and was recognized as the most immature cluster by covering the least concepts. As a result, it clearly showed that interaction between scientists and non-scientists is limited. This cluster emphasized the fact that citizen science, as "public participation in scientific research", through participatory monitoring and participatory research often leads to improvements in scientific research by improving the capacity of the scientific community as well as increasing public understanding of science. Further investigation into discourse dynamics between scientists and the public may provide new perspectives to improve science communication processes and enhance public engagement with science United States of America is the leader in the subject of scientific authority in the world and has published nearly half of the scientific productions in this field (40.46%). With a significant difference, England, Germany, Brazil and France were in the next positions, so it was concluded that other countries are trying to gain scientific authority in the world with a large difference compared to United States of America. Iran ranked 15th in the world with the share of scientific production of 0.83%. Therefore, Iran is at the beginning of the path of becoming a global scientific authority. Universities with a share of 92% of science production are considered the main place for countries to become a scientific authority. The top universities in the world in the field of scientific authority were mostly American and were mostly integrated in the form of university systems, so the integration of the inter-university scientific network speeds up the path of achieving scientific authority for universities.
Conclusion: The graph of the trend of scientific production in the field of scientific authority has been growing, and during the recent years since 2019, this trend has been increasing. Therefore, it was concluded that in recent years, the subject of scientific authority has become more important than in the past for various fields of knowledge. One of the obstacles of the current crisis of scientific authority is the lack of skills of scientists on how to communicate with non-scientific audiences interested in their field of knowledge, in a situation where both parties (the general public and scientists) are not trained to understand each other's communication norms, it is almost impossible to establish proper communication. Holding training courses in this field is suggested by universities, research and technological centers