Scientometrics
Mariam Keshvari; Farideh Osareh; Faramarz soheili
Abstract
Background/Purpose: the most important goal of the present dissertation is the designing of the top authors’ scientific productivity model so as to achieve a combined set of quantitative and qualitative indicators and items influencing the scientific productivity and take a step towards the improvement ...
Read More
Background/Purpose: the most important goal of the present dissertation is the designing of the top authors’ scientific productivity model so as to achieve a combined set of quantitative and qualitative indicators and items influencing the scientific productivity and take a step towards the improvement of the scientific productivity’s evaluation.Methodology: the present study has been conducted based on a mixed (quantitative-qualitative) method; the qualitative section uses the ideas and notions of the experts in the scientific productivity domain and the quantitative section deals with the application of the statistical tests and scientometrics’ indicators. Two statistical populations have taken part in the present study: 12 domestic and foreign experts in the scientific productivity field; 235 highly cited authors from around the globe. The study data have been collected using checklist, questionnaires and Clarivate Analytics-Web Of Science database. To analyze the data, SPSS 19 and LISREL 8 were used. The scientific productivity model has been verified based on the experts’ ideas in the population of the top authors using second order confirmatory factor analysis.Findings: the present study’s findings indicate that the scientific productivity model based on the experts’ notions in population of the studied top authors features a favorable goodness of fit. Considering the factor loads in the confirmatory factor analysis, the “bibliometrics component” with a factor load of 1, the “individual component” with a factor load of 0.69 and the “organizational component” with a factor load of 0.63 in the population of highly cited authors are influential in the scientific productivity model. Discussion and Conclusion: the findings of the present study indicate that a collection of organizational, individual and bibliometric factors influence the scientific productivity of the top authors and the tri-component model features a favorable goodness of fit. Combination of the quantitative and qualitative items can offer a more thorough image of the status of the individuals’ scientific productivity; the items offered in this model can be employed as solution by the individuals and organizations for enhancing scientific productivity.
Hajar Sotudeh; Maryam Yaghtin
Abstract
Aim: The present study aims to compare Iran's scientific productivity in different disciplines during 1991-2011 based on their publication per capita. Method: Using a scientometric method, data were obtained from the Thompson-Reuters citation websites using the SCI. The researchers’ subject matters ...
Read More
Aim: The present study aims to compare Iran's scientific productivity in different disciplines during 1991-2011 based on their publication per capita. Method: Using a scientometric method, data were obtained from the Thompson-Reuters citation websites using the SCI. The researchers’ subject matters were classified in two different ways: (1) based on the journals’ subject categories and (2) based on the researcher’s educational or research department as reflected in his/her affiliation. Findings: The findings of this study revealed that the overall publication per capita for Iranian researchers was 51.7 in a 21-year period. The chemistry and agricultural sciences subject categories had the highest and lowest publication per capita respectively. The highest and lowest rate of publication per capita also belonged to the biophysics and the pathobiology departments respectively. Test results showed a significant difference among various subject categories and departments in terms of publication rate per capita. This difference was observed among the biology and biochemistry, chemistry, engineering, material science and several other disciplines. Such a difference was also observed between the chemistry department and some of the other departments. Conclusion: Results indicated that paying attention to the standard of the absolute number of scientific papers had failed to provide a comprehensive picture of the reality of research, and that paying attention to other standards such as publications per capita in which the number of researchers is taken into account in addition to the number of papers can provide a more accurate and comprehensive picture of scientific productivity.
