نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران
2 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
3 دکتری علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Background and Objectives: One of the most important goals of scientometrics is the evaluation and analysis of scientific components. These evaluations are done for different purposes and one of the most important of them is to identify "top authors"; That is, those who are prominent in their field of science due to the quantity and quality of scientific and research activities. A review of the literature shows that the identification of top authors, which has been done with two approaches: quantitative (scientometric indicators) and qualitative (expert opinions) - and rarely combined - is growing towards a quantitative approach. However, some related works, while warning about purely quantitative evaluations, state that quantitative evaluations show an incomplete picture of scientific productivity, and that quality evaluation is necessary, and emphasize the importance of the role of experts. On the other hand, in the literature, the identification of top authors is based on the evaluation of scientific productivity, Currently, scientific productivity in the field of scientometrics is measured according to the level of publications and citations, although citation and publication categories cannot give a complete picture of scientific productivity - according to the economic definition of this concept (output to output ratio) - But these two categories are currently the most important issues in the relevant texts; Therefore, it seems that a comparison between quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluating the scientific productivity of top authors can help a more comprehensive understanding of the evaluation of top authors.the most important goal of the present article 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. The summing of the ideas from the three studied sample volumes indicates that “the time dedicated to the scientific activities”, “the number of the authors’ received citations” and “the scientific prestige of the affiliate organization” are respectively the most important items in the individual, bibliometrics and organizational components influencing the scientific productivity of the top authors.
Discussion: 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. Findings of the present study show that the bibliometric component on the one hand affects on scientific productivity and on the other hand, is the product of the interaction between individual and organizational components, and the final output of scientific productivity. The top authors in the present study are more cited than their colleagues and peers based on the highly cited indicator. Of course, according to relevant research, highly cited authors are probably highly published. Scientific success in the present age seems to require familiarity with the existing competitive culture of citation and publishing. According to the results obtained in the present study, it is thought that in the community of the top authors, they are familiar with the publishing and citation culture, collaborates with scholarly journals (as a reviewer or editorial board member), selects journals of high academic standing for publication, and recognizes the importance of communicating with world-renowned authors. The result shows that the role of the organizational component is less than the other two components; Emphasising on publishing more and receiving more citations can be both from organizational factors and from internal and individual motivations. 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.
کلیدواژه‌ها English
