Partnership ability and co-authorship network of information literacy field

被引:8
|
作者
Baji, Fatima [1 ]
Mostafavi, Ismail [1 ]
Parsaei-Mohammadi, Parastoo [1 ]
Sabaghinejad, Zivar [1 ]
机构
[1] Ahvaz Jundishapur Univ Med Sci, Sch Allied Med Sci, Dept Med Lib & Informat Sci, Ahvaz, Iran
关键词
Co-authorship; Social network analysis (SNA); Partnership ability; phi-index information literacy; COLLABORATION; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-021-04062-2
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Scientific collaboration or co-authorship has different forms and can be a factor in creating knowledge and even increasing the quality of scientific works. Beyond the quantity, qualitative factors also affect scientific collaboration. Two factors Collaboration intensity and member diversity can predict research quality, so teams with constant or diverse collaborators could affect co-authorship network's quality. Current study used scientometrics methods including SNA. Research data were "information literacy" related documents indexed in Scopus database, during years 1941-2019. Scopus.exe, UCINET 6 and NetDraw were used for analyzing data. Results show that phi-index has a negative relationship with number of co-authors, degree and ties. This means that the higher number of co-authors, degree and ties the lower phi-index, which is confirms phi-index meaning. Centrality betweenness has a positive relationship with the number of articles, co-authors and ties which means that betweenness of authors goes high if the author has more articles, co-authors and ties. Also, degree centrality has a significant positive relationship with the number of articles, betweenness, and ties. Findings related to correlations show that phi-index is a measure based on the number of articles and fixed teams of scientific collaboration while the centrality measures such as degree and betweenness are based on the number of articles, diversity in co-authors. This seems to be in contrast with the phi-index concept.
引用
收藏
页码:8205 / 8216
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] What is co-authorship?
    Ponomariov, Branco
    Boardman, Craig
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2016, 109 (03) : 1939 - 1963
  • [32] REASONS FOR CO-AUTHORSHIP
    KUH, GD
    PHI DELTA KAPPAN, 1982, 63 (10) : 714 - 714
  • [33] What is co-authorship?
    Branco Ponomariov
    Craig Boardman
    Scientometrics, 2016, 109 : 1939 - 1963
  • [34] Higher School of Economics Co-authorship Network Study
    Gerasimova, Olga
    Makarov, Ilya
    2019 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER APPLICATIONS & INFORMATION SECURITY (ICCAIS), 2019,
  • [35] CONSTRUCTAL NETWORK OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, CO-AUTHORSHIP AND CITATIONS
    Razera, Andre Luis
    Errera, Marcelo Risso
    Dos Santos, Elizaldo Domingues
    Isoldi, Liercio Andre
    Oliveira Rocha, Luiz Alberto
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY SERIES A-MATHEMATICS PHYSICS TECHNICAL SCIENCES INFORMATION SCIENCE, 2018, 19 : 105 - 110
  • [36] Economics of co-authorship
    Bruno, Bruna
    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND POLICY, 2014, 44 (02) : 212 - 220
  • [37] Evaluation Framework for Innovativeness of University Co-authorship Network
    Li, Li
    Gao, Xuezhu
    ICEEM 2012: 2012 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ECONOMIC, EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT, VOL 1, 2012, : 278 - 283
  • [38] Co-Authorship and Bibliographic Coupling Network Effects on Citations
    Biscaro, Claudio
    Giupponi, Carlo
    PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (06):
  • [39] Co-authorship network analysis of Iranian researchers on osteoporosis
    Khalagi, Kazem
    Mansourzadeh, Mohammad Javad
    Aletaha, Azadeh
    Yarmohammadi, Hossein
    Atlasi, Rasha
    Banar, Sepideh
    Fahimfar, Noushin
    Hajipour, Firoozeh
    Sanjari, Mahnaz
    Larijani, Bagher
    Ostovar, Afshin
    ARCHIVES OF OSTEOPOROSIS, 2021, 16 (01)
  • [40] Research groups of oncology co-authorship network in China
    Yu, Qi
    Shao, Hongfang
    Duan, Zhiguang
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2011, 89 (02) : 553 - 567