Iranian Journal of Information Management

A Comparative Study of the Status of Scientific Collaboration Based on Centrality Measures in the Middle East Countries' Retracted Articles

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Master of Scientometrics, Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Prof., Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

3 Master Student of Scientometrics, Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

4 Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The present study aimed to compare the status of scientific collaborations based on the network centrality measures of retracted works in the Middle East countries. In the present study, the bibliometric analysis method, with the scientometrics approach and visualization techniques, was used to visualize scientific collaborations. Research data consisted of 537 records for the years 1975 to 2020 were extracted from the WOS database. Gephi, NodeXL and VOSviewer software are also used to draw collaboration maps and advanced network analysis. The results showed that Iran has a potential role in establishing negative relations with other countries. Most international collaborations have taken place between Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The findings also showed that, in general, Iran had the highest amount of network centrality measures. Concerning the collaboration of universities, the highest number of collaborations occurred between the Islamic Azad University and the University of Tehran. In general, the highest degree of collaboration, Betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, and eigenvector centrality devoted to Islamic Azad University. The results showed that Iran has a potential role in establishing negative relations among other countries. The results also indicate that most of the retracted works have been published by Iranian universities, especially public and medical sciences universities. Since scientific collaboration was very strong among writers of the retracted works, it can be argued that scientific collaboration as an indicator for quantitative and qualitative evaluation of scientific works does not produce a positive result in all cases.

Keywords

پورشسب، ساناز (۱۳۹۷). آسیب‌شناسی و بررسی مقاله‌های بین‌المللی سلب‌اعتبار‌شده ایرانی در پایگاه اطلاعاتی اسکوپوس، گوگل اسکالر و ریسرچ گیت بین سال‌های 1997 تا 2017. علوم و فنون مدیریت اطلاعات، 4 (2)، 137-156.
جنوی، المیرا؛ مرادی، شیما (1397). سرنوشت استنادی مقالات سلب‌اعتبارشده جهان: مطالعه تطبیقی حوزه‌های علوم انسانی، علوم پزشکی، علوم مهندسی و علوم پایه. مدیریت اطلاعات 4(1)، 25-40.
سهیلی، ‌فرامرز؛ عصاره، فریده (۱۳۹۲). مفاهیم مرکزیت و تراکم در شبکه‌های علمی و اجتماعی. مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات، 95، 92-109.
‏قربی، علی؛ فهیمی‌فر، سپیده (1399). ابعاد و الگوهای همکاری آثار سلب‌اعتبار‌شده به‌عنوان مصداق سوءرفتار پژوهشی در سطح بین‎المللی و ایران. پژوهش‎نامه علم‌سنجی، 6(11)، 149- 172.
‏‏مرادی، شیما؛ جنوی، المیرا (۱۳۹۷). مطالعه علم‌سنجیِ مقاله‌های سلب‌اعتبارشده ایرانی. پژوهش‎نامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 33 (4)، 1789-1808.
مرادی، شیما؛ جنوی، المیرا؛ کاظمی، حمید (1396). مطالعه تطبیقی سوء رفتار علمی در جهان. مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات، 28(4)، 75-94.
Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14 (5-6), 421-433.
Almeida, R.M.V.R.D., Catelani, F., Fontes-Pereira, A.J., & Gave, N.D.S. (2016). Retractions in general and internal medicine in a high-profile scientific indexing database. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 134(1), 74-78.
Bonetta, L. (2006). The aftermath of scientific fraud. Cell, 124 (5), 873-875.
Cokol, M., Ozbay, F., & Rodriguez-Esteban, R. (2008). Retraction rates are on the rise. Embo Reports, 9 (1), 2-2.
Dal-Ré, R., & Ayuso, C. (2019). Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. Journal of medical genetics, 56(11), 734-740.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4 (5), e5738.
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (42), 17028-17033.
Furman, J. L., Jensen, K., & Murray, F. (2012). Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 41 (2), 276-290.
Ginger Zhe, J., Benjamin, J., Susan Feng, L., & Brian, U. (2013). The Reverse Matthew Effect: Catastrophe and Consequence in Scientific Teams. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. PLoS ONE, 7 (10), e44118.
King, E.G., Oransky, I., Sachs, T.E., Farber, A., Flynn, D.B., Abritis, A., Kalish, J.A., & Siracuse, J.J. (2018). Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature. The American Journal of Surgery, 216(5), 851-855.
Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information processing & management, 41 (6), 1462-1480.
Mongeon, P., & Lariviere, V. (2016). Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors' careers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (3), 535-542.
Nagarajan, R., Kalinka, A. T., & Hogan, W. R. (2013). Evidence of community structure in biomedical research grant collaborations. Journal of biomedical informatics, 46 (1), 40-46.
Neale, A. V., Dailey, R. K., & Abrams, J. (2010). Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16 (2), 251-261.
Neale, A. V., Northrup, J., Dailey, R., Marks, E., & Abrams, J. (2007). Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13 (1), 5-24.
Nogueira, T. E., Gonçalves, A. S., Leles, C. R., Batista, A. C., & Costa, L. R. (2017). A survey of retracted articles in dentistry. BMC Research Notes, 10 (1), 253-253.
Palla, I.A., Singson, M., & Thiyagarajan, S. (2020). A comparative analysis of retracted papers in Health Sciences from China and India. Accountability in Research, 27(7), 1-16.
Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 263 (10), 1420-1423.
Ribeiro, M. D., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2018). Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics, 114, 719-734.
Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(4), 271-282.
Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84 (2), 365-371.
Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37 (4), 249-253.
Steen, R. G. (2012). Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk? Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(4), 228-232.
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PLoS ONE, 8: e68397.
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science engineering ethics, 12(1), 53-74.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. (Vol. 8): England: Cambridge University press.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316 (5827): 1036-1039.
Iranian Journal of Information Management
Volume 6, Issue 1 - Serial Number 10
September 2020
Pages 223-246
  • Receive Date: 17 June 2020
  • Revise Date: 29 July 2020
  • Accept Date: 01 September 2020