Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln


Date of this Version

Summer 5-6-2019


1. Schneider F, Feldmann A, Krishnamurthy B, Willinger W. Understanding online social network usage from a network perspective. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement conference IMC 09. 2009. p. 35.

2. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2008;74(2):257–71.

3. Wainer J, Xavier EC, Bezerra F. Scientific production in computer science: A comparative study of Brazil and other countries. Scientometrics. 2009;81(2):535–47.

4. Zhang L, Powell JJW, Baker DP. Exponential Growth and the Shifting Global Center of Gravity of Science Production, 1900–2011. Chang Mag High Learn [Internet]. 2015 Jul 4;47(4):46–9. Available from:

5. Collazo-Reyes F. Growth of the number of indexed journals of Latin America and the Caribbean: The effect on the impact of each country. Scientometrics. 2014;98(1):197–209.

6. Biglu M-H, Movahedian G, Ghojazadeh M, Shahmohammadi G, AWT_TAG. Exploration of Iranian Scientific Productions on Biomarkers in Medline 2000-2011. J Maz Univ Med Sci [Internet]. 2013;23(107):140–5. Available from:

7. Yaminfirooz M, Siamian H, Jahani MA, Yaminifirouz M. Scientific production of sports science in Iran: A scientometric analysis. Acta Inform Medica. 2014;22(3):195–8.

8. Kharabaf S, Abdollahi M. Science growth in Iran over the past 35 years. J Res Med Sci. 2012;17(3):1–5.

9. Fink D, Kwon Y, Rho JJ, So M. S&T knowledge production from 2000 to 2009 in two periphery countries: Brazil and South Korea. Scientometrics. 2014;99(1):37–54.

10. Mêgnigbêto E. Scientific publishing in West Africa: Comparing Benin with Ghana and Senegal. Scientometrics. 2013;95(3):1113–39.

11. Mêgnigbêto E. Scientific publishing in Benin as seen from Scopus. Scientometrics. 2013;94(3):911–28.

12. S. Al-Khalifa H. Scientometric assessment of Saudi publication productivity in computer science in the period of 1978-2012. Int J Web Inf Syst [Internet]. 2014;10(2):194–208. Available from:

13. Chang YW. Exploring scientific articles contributed by industries in Taiwan. Scientometrics. 2014;99(2):599–613.

14. Powell JJW, Dusdal J. The European Center of Science Productivity: Research Universities and Institutes in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. 2017. p. 55–83. Available from:

15. Rahimi-movaghar A, Amin-esmaeili M, Safarcherati A, Sarami H, Rafiey H. A Scientometric Study of Iranian Scientific Productions in the Field of Substance Use and Addiction Research in the Years 2008 to 2012. 2015;7(3):99–108.

16. Yousefi A, Gilvari A, Shahmirzadi T, Hemmat M, Keshavarz M, AWT_TAG. A survey of scientific production of Iranian researchers in the field of immunology in the ISI database. Razi J Med Sci [Internet]. 2012;19(96):1–11. Available from:

17. Sigerson L, Cheng C. Scales for measuring user engagement with social network sites: A systematic review of psychometric properties. Comput Human Behav. 2018;83:87–105.

18. Social networking sites and our lives [Internet]. Pew Research Center. Washington D.C. 2011 [cited 2018 Feb 16]. Available from:

19. Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2018, ranked by number of active users (in millions) [Internet]. Statista. 2018 [cited 2018 Feb 16]. Available from:

20. Khaseh A, Fakhar M, Susaraee M, Sadeghi S. A survey of scientific production of Iranian researchers in the field of parasitology in the ISI database. Iran J Med Microbiol. 2010;4(3):38–47 [Article in Persian].

21. Ibáñez A, Larrañaga P, Bielza C. Cluster methods for assessing research performance: Exploring Spanish computer science. Scientometrics. 2013;97(3):571–600.

22. Lancho Barrantes BS, Guerrero Bote VP, Rodríguez ZC, De Moya Anegón F. Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2012;63(3):481–9.

23. Bornmann L. Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2017;68(4):1036–47.

24. Khor KA, Yu L-G. Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics [Internet]. 2016 Jun 15;107(3):1095–110. Available from:

25. Moin M, Mahmoudi M, Rezaei N. Scientific output of Iran at the threshold of the 21st century. Scientometrics. 2005;62(2):239–48.

26. Parvin S. Scientometric Analysis of Information Security Literature at National, Regional and International Levels. 2018.

27. Saboury AA. Iran science production in 2010. Sci Cultiv. 2011;1(2):16–23.

28. Osareh F, Marefat R. The growth of scientific productivity of Iranian researchers in Medline. Rahyaft. 2005;35:39–44 [Article in Persian].

29. NorooziChacoli A, Nourmohammadi H, Vaziri E, Etemadifard A. Comparative evaluation of Iran, Turkey and Egypt’s scientific productions through 2005 to 2006. Rahyaft. 2007;40:65–75 [Article in Persian].

30. Kouhnavard B, Mihanpour H, Barkhordari A, Roshanaei A, Parvin S, AWT_TAG. The Relationship between Ergonomic Conditions and Productivity of Librarians Working in Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Affiliated Educational-Research Centers, Yazd in 2014. Occup Hyg Heal Promot J [Internet]. 2017;1. Available from:

31. Makris GC, Spanos A, Rafailidis PI, Falagas ME. Increasing contribution of China in modern biomedical research. Statistical data from ISI Web of Knowledge. Med Sci Monit. 2009;15(12):15-21.

32. Velmurugan, C and Radhakrishnan, N. (2018). Publication Analysis of Nanotechnology in Global Perspective: a Scientometric Approach. Research Journal of Library and Information Science, 2 (2), 2018, 36-49.

33. Velmurugan, C and Radhakrishnan, N. (2017). Phytochemistry Research in India: A Scientometric Profile. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 15 (2),15-31.

34. Velmurugan, C and Radhakrishnan, N. (2017). Mapping of Social Media Research in India: A Scientometric Profile. Journal of Scientific Achievements,2 (4),19-24.

35. Velmurugan, C and Radhakrishnan, N. (2016).Visualizing Global Nanotechnology research on publication deeds, 1989-2014. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1372, 1-26.

36. Velmurugan, C and Radhakrishnan, N. (2015).Visualizing Energy and Environment Research Productivity in Australia: A Scientometric Profile. Asia Pac. j. energy environ, 2 (3), 145-160.


Due to the major role of research in the sustainable development of countries all around the world, mapping the scientific production must be designed according to indexed in databases. The purpose of the present study is to analyze Iranian literature on the field of social networks in comparison with the same studies to cross the Middle East and the world level. This is research is a descriptive study. A total of 123,609 documents indexed pertained to this topic were processed from 1970 to the end of 2017 indexed in the Scopus database. Excel software was used to analyze the data. Different study types, characterized by years, city/country of origin, journals and more productive authors, the ratio cooperation between them by country and institutions, cites and H index. Data was collected and analyzed in Microsoft Excel software. The finding showed that United States was the highest producer (% 29.74), followed by China (%11.85) and Iran ranked 31th among the countries of the world and also 3rd among the Middle East countries (H index=23). Although the ratio of scientific production in bibliographical databases, particularly regional, is still relatively impressive then it is necessary to promote more research on it.



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.