Bibliometric analysis of parasitological research in iran and Turkey: a comparative study.
AbstractBackground: This study was designed to assess and compare the quantity and quality of Iranian and Turkish researchers working in the field of Parasitology from bibliometric point of view. Methods: To assess the contributions and achievements of the Iranian and Turkish parasitologists, bibliometric analysis was carried out based on the citation data retrieved from Web of Science. Results: The absolute productivity of Turkish and Iranian parasitologists’ papers has almost tripled for Turkey, from 12 papers in 2002 to 36 papers in 2011, and decuple for Iran, from 10 papers to 123 from 2002 to 2010. The average number of citation per article is about 5.8 and 4 for Turkish and Iranian parasitologists’ papers, respectively. The “Veterinary Parasitology” journal was the most cited journal in both countries. The majority (more than 90%) of cited items was foreign journal articles and one half of all references in journals articles dated 11 and 12 years while one half of cited books was dated within 14 to16 years for Turkish and Iranian papers, respectively. Conclusion: Based on observed data and applied model, it is anticipated that the total number of Iranian and Turkish parasitologists’ publications in Web of Science will exceed of 2512 and 240 ar-ticles per annum for Iranian and Turkish in 2020, respectively.
Diener E, Suh E. Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Soc Indic Res. 1997;40:189-216.
The PLoS Medicine Editors. The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med. 20063(6): e291.
Wade N. Citation analysis: A new tool for science administrators. Science. 975;188:429-432.
SCImago. (2007). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://www.scimagojr.com
Beiki O, Beiki D. Parsmedline: Establishment of a web-based bibliographic database related to iranian health and medical research. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:400-403.
Osareh F, Wilson CS. Collaboration in iranian scientific publications. Libri. 2002;52:88-98.
Habibi G, Rashidi A, Feldman MD. Emerging concerns about iran's scientific and medical future. Lancet. 2006;368:985-985.
Estabrooks CA, Winther C, Derksen L. Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the research utilization literature in nursing. Nurs Res. 2004;53:293-303.
Leimu R, Koricheva J. Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? Bioscience. 2005;55:438-443.
Andrews JE. An author co-citation analysis of medical informatics. J Med Libr Assoc. 2003;91:47-56.
Nash-Stewart CE, Kruesi LM, Del Mar CB. Does bradford's law of scattering predict the size of the literature in cochrane reviews? J Med Libr Assoc. 2012;100:135-138.
Holsapple CW, Johnson LE, Manakyan H, Tanner J. A citation analysis of business computing research journals. Inform Manage. 1993;25:231-244.
Lariviere V, Archambault E, Gingras Y, Vignola-Gagne E. The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec. 2006;57:997-1004.
Vincent A, Ross D. Citation analysis of the decision science journal. Decision Line. 2000;31:4-8.
Crawford S. Derek john de solla price (1922-1983). The man and the contribution. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1984;72:238-239.
MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. JASIST. 1989;40:342-349.
Puljak L, Vukojevic K, Lovric Kojundzic S, Sapunar D. Assessing clinical and life sciences performance of research institutions in split, croatia, 2000-2006. Croat Med J. 2008;49:164-174.
Larsen PO, von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by science citation index. Scientometrics. 2010;84:575-603.
Zhou P, Leydesdorff L. A comparison between the China scientific and technical papers and citations database and the science citation index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec. 2007;58:223-236.