Ranking the factors affecting scientific data sharing among Iranian Medical researchers using DEMATEL technique

Data sharing is considered as a hot topic and a norm in many scientific fields. But it seems that, it was neglected in Iranian Medical fields. This research aiming to identify relevant factors in data sharing. With using semi-structured interview, survey and DEMATEL techniques, the present study identified the influencing factors affecting data sharing. The sample population consisted of 14 experienced Iranian medical researchers in data sharing. The results showed that, education, budgeting, attitudes, and institutional requirements were the most influential factors among others and were pure casual factors. In view of Iranian medical researchers, budgeting and organizational supports had the highest effect on authorship, structures, attitudes, ownership and their trust. Co-authorship, trust among the researchers and research system, legal issues like ownership, and the conditions of data access were not strong casual nor strong effect variables in this research, but had important role in data sharing and should be more considered. Identifying factors influencing data sharing enhance and strengthen data sharing and facilitate movement towards data-driven researches, and scientific communities could apply the advantages of data sharing

Visualizing Subjective Mapping in the Field of E-book Publishing in the Context of Users and Librarians

The present paper reports the findings of a research which aimed to visualize subjective mapping of "e-books" in the context of users and libraries. The research is a kind of scientometrics studies via qualitative content analysis method. Node XL software was used to visualize the map. The research community included all papers in the subjective field of "e-books" in the context of users and libraries which were published in the journals indexed in the EBSCO database during 2005-2011. Results show that subjects of "e-books (general)", "e-book readers" and "electronic textbook" are the most important subjects which are allocated mental disturbances related to users through the papers. Moreover, in the field of "e-textbooks" the strongest subjective connections are related to "students and usages". Moreover, "students" and "children" are as the most important stratum. Furthermore, survey on the usage rate of e-books and analysis statistics of their usage are as the most significant discussions that are considered from library-related approach. Additionally, the current situation of e-books in public and academic libraries is accentuated by researchers as another predominant subject. Visualizing subjective mapping including the mentioned contexts is not revealed by previous studies. Hence, it is included a novel contribution

Visualizing Subjective Mapping in the Field of E-book Publishing in the Context of Users and Librarians

The present paper reports the findings of a research which aimed to visualize subjective mapping of "e-books" in the context of users and libraries. The research is a kind of scientometrics studies via qualitative content analysis method. Node XL software was used to visualize the map. The research community included all papers in the subjective field of "e-books" in the context of users and libraries which were published in the journals indexed in the EBSCO database during 2005-2011. Results show that subjects of "e-books (general)", "e-book readers" and "electronic textbook" are the most important subjects which are allocated mental disturbances related to users through the papers. Moreover, in the field of "e-textbooks" the strongest subjective connections are related to "students and usages". Moreover, "students" and "children" are as the most important stratum. Furthermore, survey on the usage rate of e-books and analysis statistics of their usage are as the most significant discussions that are considered from library-related approach. Additionally, the current situation of e-books in public and academic libraries is accentuated by researchers as another predominant subject. Visualizing subjective mapping including the mentioned contexts is not revealed by previous studies. Hence, it is included a novel contribution

Comparative Study of Research Performance and Innovation-Industry Indicators in National and International University Ranking Systems

Introduction: There are different national and international university ranking systems in the world which rank universities in terms of numerous metrics. Previous studies have investigated some educational and research indicators, but research and innovation metrics have not yet been compared. The present study aimed to compare research performance and innovation-industry indicators in the national and international university ranking systems based on measured dimensions, data extraction sources, and find the highest innovational and research-oriented ranking systems than others. Methods: This cross-sectional study covered the 2020 edition of each ranking, and the data were collected in January 2021. According to the inclusion criteria, 20 national and international university rankings were selected among 75 ranking systems. This study used a thematic method for data analysis. Results: Among 20 included university rankings in the study, 17 were international and three national university rankings that all have research performance indicators, and seven of them applied innovation-industry indicators. The highest research-oriented rankings were CWTS, NTU, U.S. News, URAP, and Research Excellence Framework. The highest innovative-industrial-oriented rankings were U-Multilink and Scivision. The U-Multilink and the Scivision were the most research and innovative-industry-oriented rankings, among others. Conclusion: The international university rankings are more innovational and research-oriented than national rankings. So, the national university rankings must introduce new national research and innovation-industry indicators for their universities' performance evaluation

The Role and Situation of the Scientometrics in Development

The measurement and evaluation of science, that scientometrics is followed, subsequently has always been in the world since it has been assumed that science can help the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the planet. Using the results of researches can effect on the economic, social, political, scientific, and cultural foundations. Therefore, the scientometrics researches are attractive for scientific and research societies that draw the distant horizons for themselves. This article introduced the scientometrics dimensions concisely and discusses the effects of results of these researches on economic, social, political, scientific, and cultural development in the countries and emphasizes its effects on the services of library and information centers. So, this paper presented the situation of scientometrics in science policy processes and states its role in the society development process based on the library method and using the analytical approach

Note from the Editor-in-Chief:Accurate Subject Classification: A Prerequisite for Correct Journal Ranking and Scientific Fairnessسخن سردبیر: طبقه‌بندی موضوعی دقیق، پیش‌نیاز رتبه‌بندی صحیح مجلات و عدالت علمی

The most important steps that can affect the actual performance of journals are the evaluation, validation, and correct ranking of scientific journals; Because the journals placed in the top positions always have more chances to receive points and better opportunities. Increasing the chances of receiving high-quality articles from prominent authors and then being in the spotlight of the specialized field and providing better grounds for moving in the center of influencing the global flow of specialized knowledge are among the advantages that a journal gains as a result of being placed in the top positions.However, the performance of citation databases such as JCR, Scimago, and PJCR is of particular importance; and as much as the correct functioning of these databases can lead to the correct ranking of journals, their incorrect functioning can lead to unrealistic and incorrect validation and ranking of journals. In the meantime, the subject classification considered by databases for journals is regarded as one of the most important factors affecting their validation and correct ranking. Because it gives sense to the position of journals, and it is of great importance to show the real position of specialized journals. Since many journal evaluation indices such as IF, SJR, Q, and the like determine the rank of journals covered by the database through the subject area in ​​that journal and comparing it to other journals in that subject area, the importance of subject classification that the database considers for journals will be more understandable. Perhaps with the inappropriate subject classification of journals by databases such as JCR, Scimago, and PJCR and placing sub-specialized, specialized, and semi-specialized journals of a field next to each other the ranking of some valuable specialized journals even introduced as Q1 journals for years have been faced with uncertainty and the risk of degradation; Because naturally, due to the limited audience of specialized journals, each subject group will have a lower chance of receiving citations than the specialized and semi-specialized journals in the same subject group. And if the ranking of the current journals in each subject group is done regardless of the sub-specialized, specialized, and semi-specialized subject areas of the journals and only based on the number of citations they receive, it cannot be expected to convey reliable and correct messages about the true status of journals to the scientific community; and without a doubt, there will be many gaps in scientific fairness.For example, we can refer to the LIS subject classification in the JCR database. In recent years, by adding a significant number of journals in the field of management to the subject group of LIS, competition is hardened for journals focusing on the specialized and sub-specialized layers of this field such as scientometrics, information organization, and the like; And it has decreased the chances of receiving citations for specialized journals in this field.The same criticism is applied to the PJCR base in ISC on a much wider level. There are many specialized journals in this database, which have been degraded in terms of Q and gradually moved to lower ranks according to the macroscopic view of the subject classification, which is expected to improve the subject classification system of journals in that database, evaluating the journals by including sub-specialized and specialized layers Journals are made. On the other hand, this database is expected to improve the transparency of the results it provides for the evaluation of journals by establishing a link between the citation statistics and the cited records of the journals it covers and guiding the journals to obtain more accurate information. For instance, it would be desirable for a journal in the field of knowledge and information science to know how many citations are received from journals in the macro-level subject (for example, humanities and social sciences), and how many citations are from journals in the middle-level subject. (for example, librarianship, archive, and codicology and manuscript research) and how many citations from the present journals were in the micro-level subject (library and information sciences)?Despite this, it seems that the Q assigned to the journals has been calculated and determined based on the total citations received from the journals present in PJCR, including the journals present at the macro, medium, and micro subject levels. In this case, since the specialized journals of each field are not comparable with the semi-specialized journals of their field in terms of the number of readers, the evaluation results of the journals provided by this database will not reflect the real and correct position of the sub-specialized journals without including the specialized considerations emphasized in scientometrics. In this way, what is more, worthy of consideration is whether the evaluation and ranking of journals in the form of incorrect subject groups can be aligned with scientific fairness and show the true status and quality of journals. And in order to move in the direction of scientific fairness, instead of relying on macro subject groups that contain a significant amount of unbalanced journals, should not the rankings and citation validations of journals be based on small subject groups that represent the main and real subject area of ​​the journal??ارزیابی، اعتبارسنجی و رتبه‌بندی صحیح مجلات علمی، از مهم‌ترین گام‌هایی است که می‌تواند عملکرد واقعی مجلات را تحت تأثیر قرار دهد؛ زیرا مجلاتی که در جایگاه‌های برتر قرار می‌گیرند، همواره از شانس بیشتری برای دریافت امتیازها و فرصت‌های بهتر برخوردار می‌شوند. افزایش شانس دریافت مقالات باکیفیت‌تر از نویسندگان برجسته‌تر و در پی آن قرارگیری در کانون توجهات حوزۀ تخصصی و فراهم شدن زمینه‌های بهتر برای حرکت در مرکز تأثیرگذاری بر جریان جهانی دانش تخصصی، از جمله مزیت‌هایی است که یک مجله در نتیجۀ قرارگیری در جایگاه‌های برتر کسب می‌کند.با وجود این، نحوۀ عملکرد پایگاه‌های استنادی رتبه‌بندی‌کنندۀ مجلات نظیر JCR، Scimago و PJCR از اهمیت خاصی برخوردار است و به همان اندازه که عملکرد صحیح این پایگاه‌ها می‌تواند به رتبه‌بندی درست مجلات منجر شود، عملکرد ناصحیح آنها می‌تواند به اعتبارسنجی و رتبه‌بندی غیرواقعی و نادرست مجله‌ها بیانجامد. در این میان، طبقه‌بندی موضوعی که پایگاه‌ها برای مجلات در نظر می‌گیرند به‌دلیل این‌که به جایگاه مجلات معنا می‌بخشد، یکی از مهم‌ترین عوامل مؤثر بر اعتبارسنجی و رتبه‌بندی صحیح آنها محسوب می‌شود و برای نشان دادن جایگاه واقعی مجلات تخصصی، از اهمیت بسزایی برخوردار است. از آنجایی که بسیاری از شاخص‌های ارزیابی مجلات نظیر IF، SJR، Q و مانند آن، رتبه مجلات تحت پوشش پایگاه را تحت تأثیر حوزۀ موضوعی مربوط به آن مجله و در مقایسه با سایر مجلاتی که در آن حوزۀ موضوعی قرار گرفته‌اند تعیین می‌کنند، اهمیت طبقه‌بندی موضوعی که پایگاه برای مجلات در نظر می‌گیرد بیش از پیش قابل درک خواهد بود. چه بسا با طبقه‌بندی موضوعی ناصحیحِ مجلات توسط پایگاه‌هایی مانند JCR، Scimago و PJCR و قرار دادن مجلات فوق‌تخصصی، تخصصی و نیمه‌تخصصی یک حوزه در کنار یکدیگر، رتبه برخی از مجلات فوق‌تخصصی ارزشمند که حتی سال‌ها به عنوان مجلات Q1 و هستۀ حوزۀ موضوعی خود نیز معرفی شده‌اند، با تزلزل و خطر تنزل روبرو شده باشد؛ چرا که به‌طور طبیعی به‌دلیل محدودتر بودن تعداد مخاطبان مجلات فوق‌تخصصی هر گروه موضوعی، آنها نسبت به مجلات تخصصی و نیمه‌تخصصی حاضر در همان گروه موضوعی از شانس کمتری برای دریافت استناد برخوردار خواهند بود و چنانچه رتبه‌بندی مجلات حاضر در هر گروه موضوعی بدون توجه به زمینه‌های موضوعی فوق‌تخصصی، تخصصی و نیمه‌تخصصی مجلات و صرفاً بر مبنای میزان استنادهای دریافتی آنها صورت پذیرد، نمی‌توان انتظار داشت که پیام‌های قابل اتکا و صحیحی را در خصوص جایگاه واقعی مجلات به جامعه علمی منتقل کند و بی‌تردید با عدالت علمی نیز فاصله‌های بسیار خواهد داشت.به عنوان مثالی از این دست، می‌توان به طبقه‌بندی موضوعی LIS در پایگاه JCR اشاره کرد که در طی سال‌های اخیر با افزودن تعداد قابل توجهی از مجلات حوزۀ مدیریت به گروه موضوعی LIS، عرصه رقابت را برای مجلاتی که بر لایه‌های تخصصی و فوق‌تخصصی این حوزه نظیر علم‌سنجی، سازماندهی اطلاعات و مانند آن تمرکز دارند تنگ کرده و شانس دریافت استناد را برای مجلات فوق‌تخصصی این حوزه کاهش داده است. روشن است که حوزۀ مدیریت برای حوزۀ LIS حوزه‌ای نیمه‌تخصصی محسوب می‌شود و مقالات این دسته از مجلات برای طیف وسیعی از مخاطبان و پژوهشگران از داخل و خارج از LIS، از جمله برای حوزه‌های مدیریت، مهندسی و مانند آن نیز مطرح و قابل استناد است. از طرفی، هیچ‌گاه مجلات کاملاً تخصصی و فوق‌تخصصی به لحاظ تعداد مخاطبان و تعداد استنادهای دریافتی با مجلات نیمه‌تخصصی قابل مقایسه نبوده و از توان رقابتی با این مجلات برخوردار نخواهند بود و مقایسه و رتبه‌بندی آنها در کنار یکدیگر و در زیر یک گروه موضوعی، نتایجی به دور از عدالت علمی به‌دست خواهد داد. به عنوان نمونه، در پایگاه JCR می‌توان به مجلات فوق‌تخصصی و وزین Scientometrics و Journal of Informetrics اشاره کرد که در میدان رقابت با طیف وسیعی از مجلات نیمه‌تخصصی حاضر در گروه LIS جا مانده و در سال‌های اخیر به‌تدریج از Q1 به Q2 تنزل پیدا کرده‌اند.همین انتقاد در سطحی به مراتب وسیع‌تر به پایگاه PJCR در ISC نیز وارد است و مجلات فوق‌تخصصی بسیاری در این پایگاه وجود دارند که با توجه به کلان‌نگری طبقه‌بندی موضوعی، به لحاظ Q تنزل یافته و به‌تدریج به رتبه‌های پائین‌تر منتقل شده‌اند که انتظار می‌رود با اصلاح نظام طبقه‌بندی موضوعی مجلات در آن پایگاه، ارزیابی‌ مجلات با لحاظ کردن لایه‌های تخصصی و فوق‌تخصصی مجلات صورت پذیرد....</p

Comparative analysis of university- industry relation in Iran and Turkey: scientometrics study

Background and aim: Now days, university-industry relation is one of the main factors in development. Therefore, because of its importance, the aim of this study was to analyze the relation between university and industry comparatively in Iran and Turkey. Material and methods: This scientometric study was conducted using citation analysis method and assessment technique. Sample population of this study was all of patents and scientific articles related to Iran and Turkey based on Us-patent and Scopus database. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statics (frequency and percent) and Inferential Tests (Pearson correlation), excel software and SPSS. Findings: The results of the present study showed that Iran and Turkey had 151159, 258719 scientific articles and 143, 584 patents in Scopus and US-patent database, respectively. In addition, Iran had the highest scientific productions were in technology based on the priorities of A to C and the lowest scientific productions with 5717 was related to the humanities and art field. In the case of patent, the most of it was associated with basic and applied science. Based on priorities, Turkey had the lowest production in the field of tourism and transport and the most production in the health and medicine field. Conclusion: After more than two decades of the establishment of the Office of the relationship between industry and university in the country, the proper interaction between the two organizations in achieving the desired level in science and technology has not been established. Therefore, studying the needs of each of two organizations by government and determination of logical way to improve the quality of their products and planning at macro-level are necessary to improve this relationship

Normalization and Valuation of Research Evaluation Indicators in Different Scientific Fields

Given the difference in research performance in various scientific fields, this study aims to weight and valuate current indicators used for evaluation of scientific productions (publications), in order to adjust these indicators in comparison to each other and make possible a more precise evaluation of scientific productions. This is a scientometrics study using documentary, evaluative, and survey techniques. The statistical population consisted of 106 top Iranian researchers, scientists, and scientific and research managers. Then their research r&#xE9;sum&#xE9; information was gathered and analyzed based on research questions. In order to compare values, the data gathered from research production performance of the population was weighted using Shannon entropy method. Also, the weights of each scientific production importance according to expert opinions (extracted from other works) was analyzed and after adjustment the final weight of each scientific production was determined. A pairwise matrix was used in order to determine the ratios. According to the results, in the area of engineering sciences, patents (0.142) in the area of science, international articles (0.074) in the area of humanities and social sciences, books (0.174), and in the area of medical sciences, international articles (0.111) had the highest weight compared to other information formats. By dividing the weights for each type of publication, the value of each scientific production compared to other scientific productions in the same field and productions of other fields was calculated. Validation of the results in the studied population resulted in very high credibility for all investigated indicators in all four fields. By using these values and normalized ratios of publication indicators it is possible to achieve precise and adjusted results, making it possible to feasibly use these results in realistic policy making

Scientometrics, International Special Indexes, scientific productivity evaluation

This research aims at identifying and validating of indicators used to evaluate research productivity of Iranian researchers. In order to achieve this aim survey and documentary methods are used. Research society consists of a 80 person sample and members of this sample were selected among top researchers of country during recent years (1389-1390) from 4 subject areas of humanities, medical sciences, technology and engineering and basic sciences. Instrument for collecting data is a questionnaire including 47 items focusing on indicators used to evaluate research productivity of researchers. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was applied to confirm it’s variability and coefficient equal to 96% was obtained. In order to confirm its validity, formal validity method was used. Responding to questions and testing research hypotheses was conducted at two levels of descriptive and inferential statistics. At the descriptive statistics level, standard deviation, average and frequency and at the inferential statistic’s level, variance analysis, least significant difference and Friedman tests were used. Results of research show that for researchers of humanities, the indicators related to book have high importance while for researchers of basic and medical sciences, indicators related to article have more importance and from point of view of technology and engineering researchers, indicators related to innovations and research plans in comparison to other indicators are more credit at evaluating research productivity of researchers

Scientometrics, International Special Indexes, scientific evaluation

The present study has been done to identifying and prioritizing of evaluation indicators of specialty indexes quality in six subject areas of technical and engineering, agricultural sciences, humanities, basic sciences, medicine and art. for Identifying indicators was performed comprehensive library studies on the most of print and electronic texts that was exist in the indexes Subject List, and identified indicators that there were related to evaluation of specialty indexes quality. These indicators divided to the two groups of indicators related to evaluation of print specialty indexes quality and indicators related to evaluation of electronic specialty indexes quality. In total were 46 indicators for evaluating the quality of print specialty indexes and 91 indicators for evaluation of quality electronic specialty indexes that some of these indicators were common in both of the Indexes form (print and electronic). Then dimensions and features that each of these indicators included during the evaluation of the indexes were identified by of study texts and take comments of experts. After The identification of this dimension, all of the indicators classified in separate classes. Thus, the total 46 evaluation indicators of print specialty indexes quality classified in 7 groups and total 91 evaluation indicators of electronic specialty indexes quality classified in 8 groups. Questionnaires were created by the indicators identified and for prioritizing criteria based on its important given some of people in each subject areas. The results of this survey were presented by the tables and graphs. Review the results points that there is not significant difference between amount of credit that has been give by the subject professionals of six subject areas of technical and engineering, agricultural sciences, humanities, basic sciences, medicine and art on evaluation indicators of print and electronic specialty indexes quality. Also, among the subject professionals of six subject areas of technical and engineering, agricultural sciences, humanities, basic sciences, medicine and art there is significant difference related to amount of importance of evaluation indicators of print and electronic specialty indexes quality