تحلیل موضوعی و ترسیم نقشه هم‌تالیفی مقالات حوزه پزشکی در پایگاه Web of Science و نشریهScientometrics (2015 تا 2020)
محورهای موضوعی : -مدیریت اطلاعات بهداشتی و درمانی
شیبا کیانمهر
1
,
صدیقه محمداسماعیل
2
1 - دانشجوی دکترای کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران، تهران، ایران
2 - دانشیار گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، واحد علوم تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: ساینتومتریکس, علم سنجی, تحلیل محتوای موضوعی, نقشه هم‌تالیفی, علوم پزشکی,
چکیده مقاله :
مقدمه: هدف شناسایی اولویت‌ها، هم‌تالیفی، توزیع موضوعی علوم پزشکی، و تعیین میزان سهم کشورها در انتشار مقالات نشریه Scientometrics، به منظور خوشه بندی و مصورسازی موضوعات حوزه پزشکی با توجه به فراوانی رخدادِ کلمات در عنوان مقالاتبوده است. روش پژوهش: تحلیل محتوا از روش‌های انجام پژوهش کیفی و بر اساس شاخص‌های علم‌سنجی است که با رویکرد کمی آمار توصیفی و با استفاده از نرم‌افزارها و فنون علم‌سنجی، به مرور نظام‌مند حوزه پزشکی ایران در پایگاه WOS، نشریه علم‌سنجی یا Scientometrics آمریکا پرداخته است. جامعه پژوهش1441 مقاله در 60 شماره منتشر شده نشریه (2015-2020) بوده است با جستجوی انواع مدارک نمایه شده انگلیسی در قسمت جستجوی پیشرفته پایگاه، تعداد 421 مقاله بازیابی، سپس با استفاده از گروه‌های موضوعی، مقالات مربوط به حوزه‌های پزشکی جدا (382 عنوان مقاله) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. یافته ها: در بخش شناسایی اولویت‌ها و توزیع موضوعی مقالات به ترتیب 5 حوزه موضوعی استناد، کتابسنجی، شبکه همکاری و شبکهواژگانی، نویسنده و علم بیشترین فراوانی را داشته است.. بررسی میزان سهم کشورها نیز نشان داد کشورهایی هم‌چون چین، آمریکا و اسپانیا به ترتیب بیشترین میزان تولید علمی را در نشریه علم‌سنجی Scientometricsداشتند. نتیجه گیری: خط مشی موضوعی حوزه علم‌سنجی در داخل کشور در حوزه پزشکی تا حدودی با خط مشی موضوعی این حوزه در سطح بین‌المللی مطابقت دارد. لذا لازم است، با بررسی و رصد مقوله های موضوعی کمتر کار شده به سوق دادن پژوهش های داخل کشور به آن سمت و سو پرداخت و مقوله های کار شده را نیز تقویت نمود.
Introduction: The aim was to identify the priorities, co-authorship, thematic distribution of medical sciences, and determine the contribution of countries in the publication of Scientometrics articles, in order to cluster and illustrate the topics of the medical field according to the frequency of occurrence of words in the titles of the articles. Methods: Content analysis as a conducting qualitative research (based on scientometric indicators, quantitative approach of descriptive statistics, using scientometric software and techniques, has dealt with the systematic review of Iran's medical field in the WOS database, American Scientometrics magazine. The research community has been 1441 articles in 60 published issues (2015-2020). By searching for all types of indexed English documents in the advanced search section, 421 articles were retrieved, then using subject groups, articles related to separate medical fields (382) was examined. Results: In identifying priorities and thematic distribution of articles, 5 thematic areas of citation, bibliometrics, collaboration network and lexical network, author and science have been the most frequent. The analysis of the share of countries also showed that China, America and Spain respectively had the highest amount of scientific production in Scientometrics. Conclusion: The thematic policy of the field of Scientometrics within the country in medicine is somewhat consistent with the thematic policy of this field at the international level. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate and monitor the subject categories that have been less worked to push domestic research in that direction and strengthen the categories that have been worked on as well.
1- Mousavi-Chalak A, Tirgar A, Yamin Firouz M. Scientific book in the field of medicine. Librarian publications; 2010. [In Persian]
2- Irfan-Manesh MA, Basirian Jahormi R. Co-authored network of articles published in the Quarterly Journal of National Library Studies and Information Organization using social network analysis indicators. Library studies and information organization, 2013; 94(24): 76–97. [In Persian]
3- Basirian A, Jahormi R. Drawing the co-authored network of researchers in the field of information science and epistemology using social network analysis indicators: a case study of the Library and Information Quarterly. Librarianship and information, 2013; 16(3): 101–21. [In Persian]
4- Arshadhi H, and et al. Delineation and analysis of co-authored networks of Shahid Beheshti University researchers in the fields of social sciences, humanities and art. Research Journal of Scientific Research, 1991; 3(1). [In Persian]
5- Malbus-Baf R, Azizi F. What is a systematic review and how is it written? (Review article). Research in medicine, 2019; 34(3). [In Persian]
6- Vaziri, Abadi F. Scientometric study of Iranian medical review articles. Scientific research paper, 2017; 3(6): 83–96. [In Persian]
7- Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997; 126(5): 376–80.
8- Ghafouri H, Vakilian M, Mohammadhassanzadeh H, Farahmand S. Mapping of co-authorship network of Iranian Emergency medicine using cluster analysis. Journal of Health Administration (JHA), 2012; 15(48). [In Persian]
9- Vošner HB, Kokol P, Bobek S, Železnik D, Završnik J. A bibliometric retrospective of the journal computers in human behavior (1991–2015). Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 65: 46-58.
10- Khasseh A A, Soosaraei M, Fakhar M. Cluster Analysis and Mapping of Iranian Researchers in the Field of Parasitology: With an Emphasis on the Co-authoreship Indicators and H Index. Iran J Med Microbiol, 2016; 10(2): 63-74 URL: http://ijmm.ir/article-1-519-fa.html
11- Osareh F, et al. Drawing and analyzing the conceptual network of the knowledge structure of Iran's scientific field. Quarterly Journal of Library Studies and Information Science of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz; 2016.
12- Siddiqui M. Examining the application of vocabulary co-occurrence analysis method in drawing the structure of scientific fields (case study: information survey field). Information processing and management (information science and technology) [Internet], 1393; 30(2): 373-396. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/131088/fa. [In Persian]
13- Kazrani, Davodian, Zairi, Farid, Suri. Evaluation of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of Iranian researchers indexed in Scopus database. Health Information Management, 2016; 12(6): 734–40. [In Persian]
14- Darvish A, Tabibi S J, AlBorzi M, Radfar R. Investigating the trend of scientific productions in the field of nursing information technology. Nursing Management Quarterly, 2018; 7(1): 61-72. [In Persian]
15- Royle P, Kandala NB, Barnard K, Waugh N. Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Syst Rev, 2013; 2: 1–11.
16-. Shen J, Li Y, Clarke M, Du L, Wang L, Zhong D. Production and citation of cochrane systematic reviews: a bibliometrics analysis. J Evid-Based Med, 2014;
17- Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. BMC Med, 2003; 1(1): 1–7.
18- Mao Z, Wang G, Mei X, Chen S, Liu X, Zeng X, et al. Systematic reviews on reports of hip fractures in Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis of publication activity. Chin Med J (Engl), 2014; 127(13): 2518–22.
19- Ketcham CM, Crawford JM. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest, 2007; 87(12): 1174–85.
20- Ngarandeh R. Scientific productions in the fields of nursing and midwifery. Journal of the School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Tehran. (Hayat), 2013; 18(4), 92-93. [In Persian]
21- Jamali A, Nedjat S, Heidari K, Jamali R, Hassanpour K, Nedjat S, et al. Worldwide inequality in production of systematic reviews. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2015; 29: 309.
22- Darvish A, Tabibi SJ, Alborzi M, Radfar R.The study of the scientific production in the field of nursing information technology during the years 1983-2017, Quarterly Journal of Nursing Management, 2018; 7(1). [In Persian]
_||_
1- Mousavi-Chalak A, Tirgar A, Yamin Firouz M. Scientific book in the field of medicine. Librarian publications; 2010. [In Persian]
2- Irfan-Manesh MA, Basirian Jahormi R. Co-authored network of articles published in the Quarterly Journal of National Library Studies and Information Organization using social network analysis indicators. Library studies and information organization, 2013; 94(24): 76–97. [In Persian]
3- Basirian A, Jahormi R. Drawing the co-authored network of researchers in the field of information science and epistemology using social network analysis indicators: a case study of the Library and Information Quarterly. Librarianship and information, 2013; 16(3): 101–21. [In Persian]
4- Arshadhi H, and et al. Delineation and analysis of co-authored networks of Shahid Beheshti University researchers in the fields of social sciences, humanities and art. Research Journal of Scientific Research, 1991; 3(1). [In Persian]
5- Malbus-Baf R, Azizi F. What is a systematic review and how is it written? (Review article). Research in medicine, 2019; 34(3). [In Persian]
6- Vaziri, Abadi F. Scientometric study of Iranian medical review articles. Scientific research paper, 2017; 3(6): 83–96. [In Persian]
7- Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997; 126(5): 376–80.
8- Ghafouri H, Vakilian M, Mohammadhassanzadeh H, Farahmand S. Mapping of co-authorship network of Iranian Emergency medicine using cluster analysis. Journal of Health Administration (JHA), 2012; 15(48). [In Persian]
9- Vošner HB, Kokol P, Bobek S, Železnik D, Završnik J. A bibliometric retrospective of the journal computers in human behavior (1991–2015). Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 65: 46-58.
10- Khasseh A A, Soosaraei M, Fakhar M. Cluster Analysis and Mapping of Iranian Researchers in the Field of Parasitology: With an Emphasis on the Co-authoreship Indicators and H Index. Iran J Med Microbiol, 2016; 10(2): 63-74 URL: http://ijmm.ir/article-1-519-fa.html
11- Osareh F, et al. Drawing and analyzing the conceptual network of the knowledge structure of Iran's scientific field. Quarterly Journal of Library Studies and Information Science of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz; 2016.
12- Siddiqui M. Examining the application of vocabulary co-occurrence analysis method in drawing the structure of scientific fields (case study: information survey field). Information processing and management (information science and technology) [Internet], 1393; 30(2): 373-396. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/131088/fa. [In Persian]
13- Kazrani, Davodian, Zairi, Farid, Suri. Evaluation of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of Iranian researchers indexed in Scopus database. Health Information Management, 2016; 12(6): 734–40. [In Persian]
14- Darvish A, Tabibi S J, AlBorzi M, Radfar R. Investigating the trend of scientific productions in the field of nursing information technology. Nursing Management Quarterly, 2018; 7(1): 61-72. [In Persian]
15- Royle P, Kandala NB, Barnard K, Waugh N. Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Syst Rev, 2013; 2: 1–11.
16-. Shen J, Li Y, Clarke M, Du L, Wang L, Zhong D. Production and citation of cochrane systematic reviews: a bibliometrics analysis. J Evid-Based Med, 2014;
17- Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. BMC Med, 2003; 1(1): 1–7.
18- Mao Z, Wang G, Mei X, Chen S, Liu X, Zeng X, et al. Systematic reviews on reports of hip fractures in Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis of publication activity. Chin Med J (Engl), 2014; 127(13): 2518–22.
19- Ketcham CM, Crawford JM. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest, 2007; 87(12): 1174–85.
20- Ngarandeh R. Scientific productions in the fields of nursing and midwifery. Journal of the School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Tehran. (Hayat), 2013; 18(4), 92-93. [In Persian]
21- Jamali A, Nedjat S, Heidari K, Jamali R, Hassanpour K, Nedjat S, et al. Worldwide inequality in production of systematic reviews. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2015; 29: 309.
22- Darvish A, Tabibi SJ, Alborzi M, Radfar R.The study of the scientific production in the field of nursing information technology during the years 1983-2017, Quarterly Journal of Nursing Management, 2018; 7(1). [In Persian]