Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln



Abrizah, A., Erfanmanesh, M., Rohani, V. A., Thelwall, M., Levitt, J. M., & Didegah, F. (2014). Sixty-four years of informetrics research: Productivity, impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 101(1), 569-585.

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Gala, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational Studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957-983.doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-6486. 2006. 00625.

Baker, W. E. (2000). Social Capital. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica, 311(3-4), 590-614.

Betts, S. C., & Stouder, M. D. (2004). The network perspective in organization studies: network organizations or network analysis?.academy of Strategic Management Journal, 3. https://www.

Brandes U, Erlebach Th (2015). Network analysis- Methodological foundations. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

Cheong, F., & Corbitt, B. J. (2009). A Social network analysis of the co-authorship network of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information System (PACIS) from 1993 to 2008. Paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281-317.

Erfanmanesh, M.; Rohani, V. A.; Abrizah, A. (2012). Co-authorship network of scientometrics research collaboration. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science. 17(3): 73-93

Garfield, E. (1980). Citation Indexing-Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities (1St Ed. ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18(4), 323-342.doi: 10.016/S0740-8188(96)90003-1

Holland, P. W., Leinhardt, S. (1979). The advance research symposium on social networks. In P. W. Holland & S. Leinhardt (Eds.), Perspectives on social network research. New York.

Jiang, Yichuan (2008). "Locating active actors in the scientific collaboration communities based on interaction topology analyses". Scientometrics, 74(3): 471–482.

Kretschmer, H., (2004) Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web, Scientometrics, 60 (3) 409–420.

Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1462–1480.doi: 10. 1016/j. ipm. 2005. 03. 012.

Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482-501.

Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific Collaboration Networks: I. Network Construction and Fundamental Results. Physical Review E., 64(016131), 1-4.doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevE. 64. 016131

Parkhe, A., Wasserman, S., & Ralston, D. A. (2006). New frontiers in network theory of Management Review, 31(3), 560-568.

Sadatmoosavi, A., Nooshinfard, F., Hariri, N., & Esmaeil, S. M. (2018). Does the superior position of countries in co-authorship networks lead to their high citation performance?. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 23(1), 51-65.

Tahmasebi Limoni, S., Tajedini, O., & Sadatmoosavi, A. (2018). Establishing and Analyzing the Pattern of Relationships in Co-authorship Networks: the Case Study of Scientific Productions of Researchers at Kerman University of Medical Sciences. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Available at:

Wang, Yan; Wu, Yishan; Pan, Yuntao, M, Zheng, Rousseau, Ronald (2014). Scientific collaboration in China as reflected in co-authorship. Scientometrics, 62(2), 183-198.

Yin, L. c., Kretschmer, H., Hanneman, R. A., & Liu, Z. y. (2006). Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An


Objectives: The present study was to identify the structure of co-authorship networks in the field of Persian language and literature, and to investigate how these structures assist researchers in successfully publishing their research works. More specifically, this study investigated the relationship between centrality and productivity of researchers in the field of Persian language and literature.

Methodology: This descriptive study was conducted through scientometric approach using social network analysis. The population of the study included all documents which were published by Persian language and literature researchers and have been indexed in ISC since 2012.

Findings and conclusion: The results showed that the topological macrostructure of the researchers’ co-authored scientific outputs enjoyed low cohesion and density; there was low willingness to co-authorship. Most of the outputs were written by a single author or two authors. The number of scientific outputs increased in 2009 and 2010, and the production in this area is increasing.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.