Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24672564›Full record

ArticleJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2014

Study of co-authorship network of papers in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences using social network analysis.

Firoozeh Zare-Farashbandi, Ehsan Geraei, Saba Siamaki

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Building visualization skills through investigating theJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020
    Article
  10. Intradepartment scientific collaboration in Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: A co-authorship study.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Firoozeh Zare-FarashbandiAssistant Professor, Medical Librarianship and Information Science, Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Ehsan GeraeiPhD Student, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz, Iran.
Saba SiamakiMSc. of Library and Information Science, Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz, Iran.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRIslamic Azad University of Shahrekord · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-authorship is one of the most tangible forms of research collaboration. A co-authorship network is a social network in which the authors through participation in one or more publication through an indirect path have linked to each other. The present research using the social network analysis studied co-authorship network of 681 articles published in Journal of Research in Medical Sciences (JRMS) during 2008-2012. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study was carried out with the scientometrics approach and using co-authorship network analysis of authors. The topology of the co-authorship network of 681 published articles in JRMS between 2008 and 2012 was analyzed using macro-level metrics indicators of network analysis such as density, clustering coefficient, components and mean distance. In addition, in order to evaluate the performance of each authors and countries in the network, the micro-level indicators such as degree centrality, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality as well as productivity index were used. The UCINET and NetDraw softwares were used to draw and analyze the co-authorship network of the papers.

resultsThe assessment of the authors productivity in this journal showed that the first ranks were belonged to only five authors, respectively. Furthermore, analysis of the co-authorship of the authors in the network demonstrated that in the betweenness centrality index, three authors of them had the good position in the network. They can be considered as the network leaders able to control the flow of information in the network compared with the other members based on the shortest paths. On the other hand, the key role of the network according to the productivity and centrality indexes was belonged to Iran, Malaysia and United States of America.

conclusionCo-authorship network of JRMS has the characteristics of a small world network. In addition, the theory of 6° separation is valid in this network was also true.

Indexed as

CentralitydensityJournal of Research in Medical Sciencesmean distancesocial network analysis

Identifiers

PMID24672564
PMCPMC3963322
OpenAlexW2110390090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.