بروسلوز: شبکه هم‌نویسندگی پژوهشگران با استفاده از شاخص‏های مرکزیت

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشجوی دکتری علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

3 استاد علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

زمینه و هدف: بروسلوز، به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین و شایع‌ترین بیماری مشترک بین انسان و حیوان (زُئونوز)، در عرصه نوپدیدی و بازپدیدی بیماری‌های عفونی، خسارت‌ها و خطرهای فراوانی به‌همراه داشته دارد. همواره کنترل و ریشه‌کنی بیماری فوق، مدنظر متخصصین قرار گرفته و در قالب همکاری‌های علمی، مقالات و کتاب‌هایی منتشر شده است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی وضعیت شاخص مرکزیت شبکه اجتماعی هم‌نویسندگی قلمرو مذکور انجام شد.
روش پژوهش: این پژوهش از نوع کاربردی است که با استفاده از روش علم‌سنجی با رویکرد تحلیلی انجام گردید. تمامی انتشارات بروسلوز که در پایگاه WOSCC در بازه زمانی 1901 تا 2019 نمایه شده‌اند، جامعه آماری این مقاله را در برمی‌گیرند. به‌منظور تشخیص کلیدواژه‌های اصلی از سرعنوان‌های موضوعی پزشکی (MeSH) و جهت تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها از نرم‌افزار Excel 2016،UCINET 6.528.0.0  وNetdraw  استفاده شد.
یافته‌ها: روند تولید انتشارات قلمرو بورسلوز صعودی و بیشترین تولید در سال 2019 با تعداد 398 مقاله بود. مجله "Journal of Clinical Microbiology " و "Blasco, Jose-Maria" با بالاترین ضریب تاثیر و اچ ایندکس، به‌ترتیب اثربخش‌ترین مجله و نویسنده بودند. "FERREIRA, F"، "LETESSON, JJ" به‌ترتیب در رتبه نخست مرکزیت رتبه، بینابینی قلمرو بروسلوز قرار دارند. 5 نویسنده هم، از مرکزیت نزدیکی یکسان و شانس مشابهی در هم‌استنادی برخوردار بودند.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: همکاری علمی پدیده­ پیچیده­ای است، که اشتراک توانمندی­ها و تولید دانش علمی جدید را بهبود می­بخشد. بررسی شاخص‌های شبکه‌های اجتماعی هم‌نویسندگی توانست اطلاعات ارزشمندی را درباره افراد مهم و تاثیرگذار شبکه بیماری بروسلوز بیان کند. نتایج تحلیل فوق در امر تصمیم‌گیری و سیاست‌گذاری همکاری‌های علمی و تخصیص بودجه راهنمای متخصصین و مراکز علمی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Brucellosis: researchers' co-authorship network using centrality indicators

نویسندگان [English]

  • Somayeh Ghavidel 1
  • Samaneh Nozar 2
  • Nosrat Riahinia 3
1 Ph.D. Student of knowledge and Information Science, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, School of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Ph.D. Student of knowledge and Information Science, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, School of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Professor of Library and Information Sciences, Kharazmi University,Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and Aim: Brucellosis, as the most important and most common disease between humans and animals  (Zoonosis), in the field of emergence and recurrence of infectious diseases, has many damages and dangers. The control and eradication of the Brucellosis has always been considered by experts and articles and books have been published in the form of scientific collaborations. The study was to investigate the status of the "Co-authorship Social Network Centrality" in Brucellosis.
Method: This research is applied research that was performed using scientometric methods with an analytical approach. All Brucellosis publications indexed on the WOSCC from 1901 to 2020 cover this article's statistical population. MeSH was used to identify keywords were used to analyze the data. Excel 2016, UCINET 6.528.0.0 and Netdraw software were used to analyze the data.
Results: The publication trend of Bursellose territory was upward and the highest in 2019 with 398 articles. The "Journal of Clinical Microbiology" and "Blasco, Jose-Maria" were the most influential journals  and authors Impact Factor and h-index. "FERREIRA, F," "LETESSON, JJ" is in the first rank of the Degree of centrality and betweenness centrality of the Brucellosi, respectively. Five authors had the same centrality of closeness and the same chance in all citations.
Discussion and Conclusion: Scientific collaboration is a complex phenomenon that improves the sharing of capabilities and new scientific knowledge. Examining coauthored social networks' characteristics could provide valuable information about the essential and influential author in the brucellosis network. Study of Social networking indicators coauthors could provide valuable information about important and influential people in the Brucellosis network. The results of the above analysis are a guide for experts and scientific centers in decision-making and policy-making of scientific collaborations and budget allocation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Brucellosis
  • Brucella
  • Social Network Analysis (SNA)
  • Centrality indicator
  • Co-authorship

مراجع

  1. Dean AS, Crump L, Greter H, Schelling E, Zinsstag J. Global burden of human Brucellosis: a
    systematic review of disease frequency. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2012; 6(10): e1865.
    2. Hotez PJ, Savioli L, Fenwick A. Neglected tropical diseases of the Middle East and North Africa:
    review of their prevalence, distribution, and opportunities for control. PLoS. 2012; 6e147.
    3. Dehghan A, Sadeghian M, Jafarnejad A. Epidemiologic survey of Brucellosis in Fasa During 2009-
    2017. Medical Journal of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2019; 62(2): 1449-1455.
    4. Hajia M, Masjedian Jazi F. Looking Again at the Diagnosis of Brucellosis Difficulties in Iran. Iranian
    Journal of Medical Microbiology Iran J Med Microbiol. 2018; 12(2): 68-77. (In Persian)
    5. Shahzad A, Samra S, Muhammad I, Muhammad R, Khizar I, Ghulam Q and et al. Detection of
    Brucella antibodies in selected wild animals and avian species in Pakistan. Indian Journal of Animal
    Research. 2020; (54): 478-481.
    6. Ribeiro VC, Carvalho J, Santis, Bastos P. et al. Spatial and temporal trend analysis of bovine
    brucellosis in Brazil, 2014 to 2018. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 4, p. 1279-1290,
    jul./ago 2020.
    7. Zhao C, Yang Y, Wu S. et al. Search trends and prediction of human Brucellosis using Baidu index
    data from 2011 to 2018 in China. Scientific Reports. 2020; Available at:
    www.nature.com/scientificreports.
    8. Rostami F, Borzoueisileh S, Ebrahimpour S. An overview of brucellosis epidemic in Iran. Crescent
    Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences. 2016; 3(1): 35-6. (In Persian)
    9. Corbel MJ. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health
    Organization & World Organisation for Animal Health. Brucellosis in humans and animals. World
    Health Organization. 2006.
    10. Ariza J, Bosilkovski M, Cascio A, D Colmenero J, J Corbel M, E Falagas M. et al. Perspectives for the
    Treatment of Brucellosis in the 21st Century: The Ioannina Recommendations. PLOS Medicine. 2007;
    4(12): e317.
    11. Savini L, Candeloro L, Conte A, De Massis F, Giovannini A. Development of a forecasting model for
    Brucellosis spreading in the Italian cattle trade network aimed to prioritize the field intervention. PLoS
    ONE; 2017 12(6): 1-16.
    12. Ebrahimi M, Hashemian M. A Case report of Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever with
    Brucellosis. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, 1970; 17(1): 63-66.
    13. Corbel MJ. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health
    Organization & World Organization for Animal Health. Brucellosis in humans and animals. World
    Health Organization. 2006.
    14. Tapak L, Shirmohammadi-Khorram N, Hamidi O, Maryanaji Z. Predicting the Frequency of Human
    Brucellosis using Climatic Indices by Three Data Mining Techniques of Radial Basis Function,
    Multilayer Perceptron and Nearest Neighbor: A Comparative Study. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology.
    2018; 14 (2):153-165
    15. Mostafavi E, Asmand M. Trend of Brucellosis in Iran from 1991 to 2008. Iranian Journal of
    Epidemiology. 2012; 8 (1):94-101. (In Persian)
    16. Seleem MN, Boyle SM, Sriranganathan N. Brucellosis: A re-emerging zoonosis .Veterinary
    Microbiology. 2010; 140(3-4): 392–398.
    17. Hashtarkhani S, Akbari M, Jarahi L, Etminani K. Epidemiological characteristics and trend of
    incidence of human Brucellosis in Razavi Khorasan province. Medical Journal of Mashhad University
    of Medical Sciences, 2015; 58(9): 531-538.
  2. 18. Sonnenwald D. Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2007;
    41(1): 643–81.
    19. Soleimanzade Najafi NS, Ashrafi-rizi H, Shahrzadi L, Taheri B. The study of outputs and
    collaboration of Iranian researchers in disaster in Scopus citation database from 1999 to 2013. Payesh.
    2015; 14(5):587-596. (In Persian)
    20. Beaver DD. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future.
    Scientometrics. 2001; 52(3): 365–77.
    21. Hart RL. Co-authorship in the academic library literature: A survey of attitudes and behaviours. The
    Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2000; 26(5): 339–345.
    22. Fonseca Bd, Sampaio RB, Fonseca MVd, et al. Co-authorship network analysis in health research:
    method and potential use. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2016; 14(34): 1-10.
    23. Bakri FG, AlQadiri HM, Adwan MH. The Highest Cited Papers in Brucellosis: Identification Using
    Two Databases and Review of the Papers' Major Findings. Hindawi BioMed Research International.
    2018; 1-10.
    24. Shehatta I, Mahmood K. Bibliometric patterns and indicators of research collaboration of Egyptian
    health scientists: 1980. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science. 22(2): 45-65.
    25. De Camargo JRF, Hayashi MCPI. Co-authorship and female participation in Brazilian scientific
    journals in the surgery field: bibliometric study. Revista Digital de Biblioteconomica e Ciencia da
    Informacao. 2017; 15(1):148-171.
    26. Ozsoy Z, Demir E. The Evolution of Bariatric Surgery Publications and Global Productivity: A
    Bibliometric Analysis. Obesity Surgery. 2018; 28, 1117–1129.
    27. Chen LM, Liu YQ, Shen JN, et al. The 100 top-cited tuberculosis research studies. The International
    Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 2015; 19(6):717-722.
    28. Danesh F, Ghavidel S, Emami M. Acinetobacter baumannii: Researchers' Scientific Cooperation
    Network in Three Decades. Iranian Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2020; 14 (3): 252-269. (In
    Persian)
    29. Hasanzadeh P, Isfandyari-Moghaddam A, Soheili F, Mousavi Chalak A. Co-authorship and the
    Relationship between Social Influence and the Extent of Effectiveness and Productivity of Researchers in Domain of Chronic Cardiovascular Failure. Journal of Scientometrics. 2018; 4(8): 143-
    160. (In Persian)
    30. Baji F, Azadeh F, Parsaei-Mohammadi P, Parmah S. Mapping Intellectual Structure of Health Literacy
    Area Based on Co-Word Analysis in Web of Science Database during the Years 1993-2017. Health
    Information Management Journal. 2018; 15(3): 139-45. (In Persian)
    31. Khasseh AA, Soosaraei M, Fakhar M. Cluster Analysis and Mapping of Iranian Researchers in the
    Field of Parasitology: With an Emphasis on the Co-authorship Indicators and H Index. Iranian
    Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2016; 10 (2):63-74. (In Persian)
    32. Khaleghi N. A Glance at Evaluative Indexes in Science and Technology. National Studies on
    Librarianship and Information Organization. 2007; 18(3), 91-106. (In Persian)
    33. Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J & Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on
    scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies. 2020; 1(1): 363–376.
    34. Tajedini O, Soheili F, Sadatmoosavi A. The Centrality Measures in Co-authorship Networks: Synergy
    or Antagonism in Researchers' Research Performance. Journal of Information Processing and
    Management. 2019; 34 (3):1423-1452. (In Persian)
    35. Soheili F, Osareh F. Concepts of Centrality and Density in Scientific and Social Networks. National
    Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization. 2013; 24(3): 92-108. (In Persian)
    36. Soheili F, Osareh F. A Survey on Density and Size of Co-authorship Networks in Information Science
    Journals. Journal of Information Processing and Management. 2014; 29 (2):351-372. (In Persian)
    37. Chang MH, Harrington JE. Discovery and diffusion of knowledge in an endogenous social network.
    American Journal of Sociology. 2005; 110(4): 937–976.
  3.  
مجله دانشکده پزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد
دوره 64، شماره 2
خرداد و تیر 1400
صفحه 2896-2913

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار