Scientometrics
Ali Biranvand; Mohammad Ghanaatian; Hadi Alhaei
Abstract
Objective: This study, while identifying the scientometric indices of highly cited articles in the field of elementary particles in Clarivate Analytics and Dimensions databases, has investigated the relationship between these indices and the measures obtained from the presence of articles in citation ...
Read More
Objective: This study, while identifying the scientometric indices of highly cited articles in the field of elementary particles in Clarivate Analytics and Dimensions databases, has investigated the relationship between these indices and the measures obtained from the presence of articles in citation databases and social networks.Methodology: The present study is of a fundamental type that has been done in a descriptive manner and with an alternative method. The statistical population of the study includes 5,702 articles in the field of elementary particles that were indexed in the Clarivate Analytics database between 2000-2019. The statistical sample of the research includes 102 articles that have been introduced by the Clarivate analytics Database as the most cited articles in the field of elementary particles. In order to investigate the relationship between Scientometric Indices of the articles studied in the databases and the measures obtained from the presence of these articles in Social Networks and Citation Databases, in addition to descriptive statistics tests, Pearson correlation test to examine the relationship between research variables has been used.Findings: There is a positive relationship between the articles viewed in Mendeley and the number of citations received through Dimensions and Clarivate Analytics. However, the Citation Databases of SiteLike and Conota do not have a significant relationship with the number of citations received by Dimensions and Clarivate Analytics. Publishing articles on Facebook, Wikipedia and has a positive and significant relationship with the number of citations received through Dimensions and Clarity Analytics. While there is no significant relationship between the publication of articles on Social Networks News, Blog, Twitter, Weibo Use, Patent, Facebook, Google+ User, Editor, Video Uploader and the number of citations to Dimensions and Clarivate Analytics.Conclusion: The connection between social networks and the Dimensions database is stronger than the analytical clarity database. According to the results, Mendelian use of citations to articles is more than other citation databases. Therefore, it is recommended to use Mendeleev to publish or follow information sources.
Scientometrics
Abolfazl Asadnia; Mozaffar CheshmehSohrabi
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Library and Information Science, as one of the systems of knowledge that claims to classify the sciences, and the topics of classification and classification are among the most basic concepts taught in this field, itself suffers from a kind of intellectual fragmentation and ...
Read More
Background and Objectives: Library and Information Science, as one of the systems of knowledge that claims to classify the sciences, and the topics of classification and classification are among the most basic concepts taught in this field, itself suffers from a kind of intellectual fragmentation and is faced with the question of what rank and position it is among other systems of knowledge? Is it known as a scientific discipline? Is it a technical field? In order to achieve a proper understanding of the status of Library and Information Science (LIS) in the tree of science, the present study investigate LIS among the knowledge systems and how to put it in the tree of knowledge. A review of existing research showed that the position of the field of LIS among the knowledge systems is in an aura of ambiguity and it is necessary to be re-examined and explored.Methodology: The present study is descriptive in nature because it describes the current situation and has used two methods of library and survey. In the library section, to answer the question of whether LIS is a science or not, the concepts of science, philosophy of information science, classification, and factors of separation of sciences are discussed. In the survey section, to determine how to appoint LIS in knowledge systems, the position of the field in universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Iran in the schools that offer it and then its subject tree at five public databases (Emerald, Scopus, Wiley, ScienceDirect, and Springer) were surveyed.Findings: The results of the literature review showed that Library and Information Science can be considered as a scientific discipline. Findings related to the position of the field of Library and Information Science in the colleges offering this field showed that there is no consistent policy in any of the studied countries. In the United States, the field is offered in a wide range of colleges, in the United Kingdom mostly in the arts and humanities colleges, in South Africa more in the humanities faculties, and in Iran more in the faculties of educational sciences. In only one case in Iran LIS have a separate faculty at the University of Tehran, this type of approach can be seen in the Emerald Database Tree, which places LIS in the main categories of its Thematic Tree. Interestingly, in none of the countries surveyed is LIS in the faculties of the sub-departments of life sciences and health sciences. This is another proof of the claim that this LIS has a human nature and should be included in the tree of knowledge under the humanities and social sciences. However, it cannot be denied that in some countries there was a limited number of this field in engineering schools, which in itself requires further study. The results of the study of universities are based on the fact that Library and Information Science are in the group of social sciences and humanities and a subset of educational sciences. The results of the study of scientific databases also showed that only in Emerald, LIS is considered as one of the main branches in the classification of sciences. This field is located in Wiley under the category of educational sciences and in ScienceDirect database under the sub-branch of social sciences. Also, in Scopus and Springer databases, LIS is not placed in the subject tree. In general, the results indicate the appointment of LIS to the category of humanities and social sciences, and the faculty of Educational Sciences.Discussion: Only by knowing and having a suitable position among the sciences, a discipline can excel and reach the desired position. In general, the location of LIS in the studied countries in different faculties in the fields of basic sciences, engineering, art and humanities, and social sciences indicates that it is interdisciplinary. Except for the Emerald database, which places the field of Library and information science in the main categories of its subject tree. The approach of the databases that do not place Library and information science in the main categories has been to place this field in the group of humanities and social sciences and the subgroup of educational sciences or social sciences.
