Highly Cited Papers in Medical Fields: Scientometric Indicators and collaboration in OIC countries

Authors

Azadeh Haseli-Mofrad, Department of Library and Information Sciences, Faculty Of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranFollow
Maryam Shekofteh, Department of Library and Information Sciences, Faculty Of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding authors)Follow
Maryam Kazerani, Department of Library and Information Sciences, Faculty Of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranFollow

Document Type

Article

Citation

1. King DA. The scientific impact of nations. Nature. 2004;430:311–6.

2. May RM. The Scientific Wealth of Nations. Science (80- ). 1997;275(5301):793–6.

3. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One. 2009;4(6).

4. Hodhodinezhad N, Zahedi R, Ashrafi-rizzi H, Shams A. A scientometric study of general internal medicine domain among Muslim countries of Middle East (1991-2011). Acta Inform Medica. 2013;21(1):55–9.

5. Ho SKM. Operations and Quality Management. International Thomson Business Press; 1999. (ITBP Textbooks Series).

6. Schopper H. Islam and science: Where are the new patrons of science? Nature. 2006;444(7115):35–6.

7. 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.

8. Archambault A, Mongeon P, Larivière V. On the effects of the reunification on German researchers’ publication patterns. Scientometrics. 2017;

9. Sarwar R, Hassan S-U. A bibliometric assessment of scientific productivity and international collaboration of the Islamic World in science and technology (S&T) areas. Scientometrics. 2015;105(2):1059–77.

10. Estes RJ, Tiliouine H. Development Trends in Islamic Societies : From Collective Wishes to Concerted Actions. Soc Indic Res. 2014;116(1):67–114.

11. Repanovici A. Measuring the visibility of the University’s scientific production using GoogleScholar, “Publish or Perish” software and Scientometrics. Sci Technol Libr. 2010;(July 2011):1–14.

12. Franceschini F, Maisano D. The Hirsch spectrum: A novel tool for analyzing scientific journals. J Informetr. 2010;4(1):64–73.

13. Link AN, Vonortas NS. Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2013. 249-323 p. (Elgar Original Reference Series).

14. Durieux V, Gevenois PA. Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology. 2010;255(2):342–51.

15. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569–72.

16. Kulkarni A V, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science ,. Jama. 2009;302(10):1092–6.

17. Mattsson P, Sundberg CJ, Laget P. Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics. 2010;87(1):99–105.

18. Ho YS. Classic articles on social work field in Social Science Citation Index: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics. 2014;98(1):137–55.

19. Ho YS. The top-cited research works in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Scientometrics. 2013;94(3):1297–312.

20. Butler D. Islam and Science: The data gap. Nature. 2006;444(7115):26–7.

21. Mehrad, Jafar; naseri M. The Islamic World Science Citation Center : A New Scientometrics System for Evaluating Research Performance in OIC Region. 2016;(March).

22. Benamer HTS, Bakoush O. Arab nations lagging behind other Middle Eastern countries in biomedical research: a comparative study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):26.

23. Moed HF. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer Netherlands; 2006. (Information Science and Knowledge Management).

24. Rousseau R. Are multi-authored articles cited more than single-authored ones? Are collaborations with authors from other countries more cited than collaborations within the country? A case study. In Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung; 2001.

25. Van Raan A. The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results: Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics. 1998;42(3):423–8.

26. Mehrad J, Gazni A. Scientific impact of Islamic nations. Int J Inf Sci Manag. 2010;8(2):39–56.

27. Potrafke N. Democracy and countries with Muslim majorities: A reply and update. Public Choice. 2013;154(3–4):323–32.

Abstract

Some OIC countries have been growing rapidly in terms of international scientific publication.The purpose of this study was to determine the number of highly cited papers, the scholarly impact, H-index, Y-index, and the status of scientific collaboration among Islamic countries in medical fields. The research population included the highly cited papers in medical subject fields of all Islamic countries based on ESI. The Islamic world accounts for 1,338 (2.58%) of the world’s highly cited papers in medical fields, showing a rising trend from 2007–2017. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran rank first to third, respectively, in terms of the number of highly cited papers and the H-index. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan rank in the top three in terms of citation. Iran has published the largest number of papers by the first author and corresponding author, while Turkey and Saudi Arabia rank second and third, respectively. Collaboration among Islamic countries is low. Most of the highly cited papers from Islamic countries are a result of international collaboration with other countries. The impact of scientific papers from Islamic countries is very low. In order To increase the effectiveness of the papers, planning and policymaking in these countries should be reviewed.