Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. of Knowledge and Information Science, Payame Noor University, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Payame Noor University, Iran

Abstract

1.Introduction
Knowledge organization is an old but fundamental topic in library and information science. The importance of knowledge organization is not limited to the fact that knowledge must be organized; otherwise, it cannot be retrieved and reused. Knowledge organization must be updated regularly to reflect the progress of human knowledge; therefore, changes are inevitable. Hence, it can be said that knowledge organization has become more important, diverse, and widespread in today's world. Published research often describes only specific aspects, which only provides a partial picture of the landscape of knowledge organization research. In fact, it is difficult for researchers to gain a comprehensive view of the field by reviewing such articles. This is possible by using scientometric tools. To promote the progress of scientific research and its publication, collaborations between researchers should be examined. Co-authorship, as one of the most formal manifestations of scientific collaboration, is an activity in which two or more authors participate in the production of science together. The expansion, specialization, and complexity of science in all fields have made it impossible for researchers to master not only all sciences, but also all topics in their field of expertise. Given this on the one hand, and the growth of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary sciences and research on the other, researchers are forced to collaborate with other people. This has led to co-authorship and its growth and expansion. By analyzing co-authorship networks, the social characteristics of the knowledge structure at different levels such as individuals, organizations, sectors, and countries can be revealed. It is expected that the results of this study will help experts in this field to understand the structure of the scientific collaboration community and identify its active authors. This will allow them to quickly decide on emerging issues, trends, and key scientists. The results of this study will also play an important role in future policy-making in knowledge organization and will provide better insight into the authors and co-authorship network in this field. In light of the above, this paper examines the co-authorship structure of Persian knowledge organization articles using centrality indices.

Literature Review

As mentioned, scientometrics can provide a clear view of the changes in the field under study and can be of great help in this regard. Various studies have been published on various topics with the focus of examining co-authorship networks. In this section, due to the large number of published studies, a list of some of them will be presented. The first group examines national or regional co-authorship collaborations. For example, Hong and Hwang (2017) examined co-authorship networks of faculty and students in humanities and social sciences journals in South Korea. In the second category, researchers have examined the extent of scientific collaboration between universities, centers, and institutions at the national and international levels. Fujita et al. (2018) also examined co-authorship networks in physics and biology in organizational research. The third group of co-authorship studies is related to scientific collaborations in a specific subject area. In this type of research, the extent of national and international collaboration of researchers in a specific subject area or discipline at the national and international levels has been examined. Gonzalez-Valente, Santos, and Arencibia (2019) also examined the social structure of co-authorship in knowledge management in their study. Fan, Li, and Lu (2020) also examined co-authorship networks in the tourism industry. The fourth group of co-authorship studies examines the extent of scientific collaborations within a specific journal or journals. Kim et al. (2017) examined the co-authorship network of articles in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Zheng et al. (2017) examined the co-authorship network of the Annals of the American Geographical Society.

Methodology

This research is an applied type that has been done with the approach of scientometrics and analysis of social networks. The research data were selected from 106 keywords of his knowledge organization in the title field, which were selected after consultation with subject matter experts in this field; Together with all the articles published in selected journals of information science and epistemology indexed in the Islamic World Science Citation Center from 1378 to 1398. Finally, the retrieved records were limited to research papers, conference papers, and review papers and limited to the subject of the Library and Information field. Out of 1482 authors who were involved in the publication of 1410 articles, 168 with at least 4 articles were analyzed using UCINET software. After that, a square matrix of dimensions 168 by 168 was formed, and finally, the co-authorship network was drawn based on the centrality indicators. Bib Excel software was used to draw the matrix, and NetDraw software was used to draw the co-authorship network.

Results

Results indicated that the average number of authors per article is 1.05. Analysis of data related to co-authorship analysis indicates the two-author approach as the most common approach in knowledge organization (35.17%), and the three-author approach (26.80%) is in the next rank. Dr. Rahmatollah Fattahi (56 articles), Dr. Morteza Kokabi (44 articles) and Dr. Yaghoub Norouzi (39 articles) have the highest number of articles in knowledge organization, respectively. Also, the co-authorship of Dr. Rahmatollah Fattahi and Dr. Mehri Parirokh (10 articles) won the top rank. In the study of centrality indicators, Dr. Rahmatollah Fattahi gained the top scores in the Degree Centrality, Closeness Centrality, Betweenness Centrality, and Eigen vector, respectively.

Discussion

Results indicated that the average number of authors per article is 1.05. Analysis of data related to co-authorship analysis indicates the two-author approach as the most common approach in knowledge organization (35.17%), and the three-author approach (26.80%) is in the next rank. Dr. Rahmatollah Fattahi (56 articles), Dr. Morteza Kokabi (44 articles), and Dr. Yaghoub Norouzi (39 articles) have the highest number of articles in knowledge organization, respectively. Also, the co-authorship of Dr. Rahmatollah Fattahi and Dr. Mehri Parirokh (10 articles) won the top rank. In the study of centrality indicators, Dr. Rahmatollah Fattahi gained the top scores in the Degree Centrality, Closeness Centrality, Betweenness Centrality, and Eigen vector, respectively.

Conclusion

According to the results of the present study, it seems that prominent researchers in the field of knowledge organization, despite being productive, have not been able to play a significant role in the formation of the co-authorship network in this field.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403-412. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S175115771200003X
Abdullah Sani, M.K.J., Shari, S., Sahid, N.Z., Shaifuddin, N., Abdul Manaf, Z., & van Servellen, A. (2024). ASEAN Library and Information Science (LIS) research (2018–2022): a bibliometric analysis with strategies for enhanced global impact. Scientometrics, 129(1), 95-125. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04878-0
Acedo, F.J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, 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.x
Alipour, O., Siheili, F., Ziaei, S., & Khasseh, A.A. (2020). Structure of Knowledge Organization based on Co-Authorship Network Analysis. Library and Information Sciences23(4), 76-105. DOI: 10.30481/lis.2020.236133.1729 [In Persian]
Alipour, O., Soheili, F., & Khasseh, A.A. (2022). A Co-Word Analysis of Global Research on Knowledge Organization: 1900-2019. Knowledge Organization, 49(5), 303-315. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-5-303
Alipour, O., Soheili, F., Ziaei, S., & Khasseh, A.A. (2021). Known and Hidden Relationships of Knowledge Organization Research in the World: a Co-Citation Analysis. Library and Information Science Research11(2), 20-43. DOI: 10.22067/infosci.2021.24196.0 [In Persian]
Araujo da Silva, A.K., Barbosa, R.R., & Duarte, E.N. (2012). SOCIAL NETWORK OF CO- AUTHORING IN INFORMATION SCIENCE: study on the thematic area" knowledge Organization and Representation". INFORMACAO & SOCIEDADE-ESTUDOS22(2), 63-79.‏
Bashiri, J., & Gilvari, A. (2018). Co-authorship Status of the Articles Published in Scientific Journals of Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization during 2010-2014. Scientometrics Research Journal4(2), 73-86. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2017.564. [In Persian]
Bindu, N., Sankar, C.P., & Kumar, K.S. (2019). Research collaboration and knowledge sharing in e-governance. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 13(1), 2-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-03-2018-0022
Borgatti, S.P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social networks, 27(1), 55-71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222538101_Centrality_and_Network_Flow
Bu, Y., Wang, B., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Sugimoto, C.R., Huang, Y., & Huang, W.B. (2020). Considering author sequence in all-author co-citation analysis. Information Processing & Management, 57(6), 102300. https://openreview.net/forum?id=wLSdb5iVxP
Castanha, R.C.G., & Wolfram, D. (2018). The domain of knowledge organization: A bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space. KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION45(1), 13-22.‏ https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-13
Cuellar, M.J., Vidgen, R., Takeda, H., & Truex, D. (2016). Ideational influence, connectedness, and venue representation: Making an assessment of scholarly capital. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(1), 1-28. DOI:10.17705/1jais.00419
Danesh, F. (2020). Knowledge Organization Discovering & Visualizing Prominent Patterns, Hidden Relationships & Subjects Trends. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management36(2), 469-500. DOI: 10.35050/JIPM010.2020.008 [In Persian]
Danesh, F., & Ghavidel, S. (2024). A longitudinal study on knowledge organization publications: using hierarchical clustering and multidimensional scaling. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 73(6/7), 929-955. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-05-2022-0111
Danesh, F., & Neamatollahi, Z. (2020). Clustering the Concepts and Emerging Events of Knowledge Organization. Library and Information Sciences23(2), 53-85. DOI: 10.30481/lis.2020.213568.1666 [In Persian]
Erfanmanesh, M., & Arshadi, H. (2015). Co-authorship Network of Institutions in Iranian Knowledge and Information Science Papers. Academic Librarianship and Information Research49(1), 79-99. DOI: 10.22059/jlib.2015.56966 [In Persian]
Erfanmanesh, M., & Basirian Jahromi, R. (2013). The Co-authorship Network of the Articles Published in the National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization Journal Using Social Networks Analysis Indexes. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies24(2), 76-96. [In Persian]
Erfanmanesh, M., & Hosseini, E. (2015). 10 Years of the International Journal of Information Science and Management: A scientometric and social network analysis study. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 1(13), 1-20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277133001_10_Years_of_the_International_Journal_of_Information_Science_and_Management_A_Scientometric_and_Social_Network_Analysis_Study
Esteves Martins, M., Silveira Martins, G., Mario Csillag, J., & Carla Farias Pereira, S. (2012). Service's scientific community: a social network analysis (1995‐2010). Journal of Service Management23(3), 455-469.‏
Fahimifar, S., & Sahli, F. (2015). Co-authorship Network in Scientific Knowledge and Information Science Persian Journals. Research on Information Science and Public Libraries, 21 (1), 127-151. [In Persian]
Fan, W., Li, G., & Law, R. (2020). Analyzing co-authoring communities of tourism research collaboration. Tourism Management Perspectives, 33, 100607.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100607
Fouladian, M., & MohamadEsmaeil, S. (2019). Investigation of the Collaboration Network of the Faculty Members of the Technical and Engineering Research Institute of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in Tehran: 2011-2015. Scientometrics Research Journal5(1), 241-260. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2018.715 [In Persian]
Fu, C., Zeng, W., Ding, R., Mao, C., He, C., & Chen, G. (2017, August). Social Network Analysis of China Computer Federation Co-author Network. In International Conference on Human Centered Computing (pp. 422-432). Springer, Cham.‏ DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-74521-3_45
Fujita, M., Ishido, K., Inoue, H., & Terano, T. (2018, December). Evaluating Researchers through Betweenness Centrality Measures of Co-Author Networks from Academic Literature Database: Finding Gatekeeper Researchers in Organizational Research. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 4313-4320). IEEE.‏ DOI:10.1109/BigData.2018.8622311
Geraei, E., & Basirian Jahmori, R. (2013). Mapping the co-authorship network of researchers in the field of information science and epistemology using social network analysis indicators: A case study of the Quarterly Journal of Library and Information Science. Library and Information Sciences, 16(3), 101-121. [In Persian]
Gomez-Crisostomo, R., Caldera-Serrano, J., & Maria Romo-Fernandez, L. (2018). Co-authoring in Social Sciences as a strategy for improving the visibility of scientific Works: increase in the number of citations (2005-2014). CUADERNOS DE DOCUMENTACION MULTIMEDIA, 29(1), 28-41.‏ file:///C:/Users/Win%2010/Downloads/ecob,+028-041.pdf
González-Valiente, C.L., Santos, M.L., & Arencibia-Jorge, R. (2019). Evolution of the Socio-cognitive Structure of Knowledge Management (1986–2015): An Author Co-citation Analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science4(2), 36-55.‏ https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/jdis-2019-0008
Haidari, G., Zavaraqi, R., & Mokhtarpour, R. (2020). Authorship and Co-Authorship Structure of Knowledge and Information Science: Status of Presence and Influence outside the Borders. Library and Information Sciences23(3), 62-90. DOI: 10.30481/lis.2020.57141 [In Persian]
Haseli, D., Mokhtari, H., Saberi, M.K., & Fattahi, A. (2024). Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (JOLIS) from a bibliometric perspective (1991-2023). Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 09610006241258219. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241258219
Hassanzadeh, M., Esbaktabar, M., Sohrabzadeh, S., & Mohammadi Zeron, N. (2019). Impact of Co-authorship on the Quality of Papers: An Approach to Papers Published in the Field of Knowledge and Information Science from 2008 to 2015. Scientometrics Research Journal5(2), 177-198. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2017.565 [In Persian]
Hong, R.S., & Hwang, E.S. (2017). Increased number of papers co-authored by professor and his students in humanities and social sciences journals published in Korea. Science Editing4(1), 12-17.‏ DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.83
Hu, K., Govindjee, G., Tan, J., Xia, Q., Dai, Z., & Guo, Y. (2020). Co-author and co-cited reference network analysis for chlorophyll fluorescence research from 1991 to 2018. Photosynthetica, 58(1), 110-124.‌ DOI: 10.32615/ps.2019.154.
Jafari, S., Farshid, R., & Mostafavi, E. (2020). Co-authoring Patterns and Subject Trends in Iranian and World Scientific Research in the Field of Information and Knowledge Organization (2001-2020). Knowledge Retrieval and Semantic Systems7(22), 25-54. DOI: 10.22054/jks.2020.50690.1299 [In Persian]
Keramatfar, A., & Amirkhani, H. (2019). Bibliometrics of sentiment analysis literature. Journal of Information Science, 45(1), 3-15. DOI:10.1177/0165551518761013
Khalili, L., & Mohammadi, F. (2021). Scientometric Analysis of English-language Journals in the Field of Knowledge and Information Science in Iran Based on Scopus Data. Scientometrics Research Journal7(2), 197-220. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2020.5329.1368 [In Persian]
Khasseh, A. A., Mokhtari, H., & Riyahi, M. (2024). Mapping the Knowledge Structure of Persian Research on Information Technology (2010-2019). Scientometrics Research Journal10(2), 181-216. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2024.17562.1661 [In Persian]
Khasseh, A. A., Mokhtari, H., & Riyahi, M. (2024). Mapping the Knowledge Structure of Persian Research on Information Technology (2010-2019). Scientometrics Research Journal10(2), 181-216. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2024.17562.1661 [In Persian]
Khasseh, A.A., Ghazizade, H., FallahEstalakhJani, B., & Mokhtari, H. (2020). A Scientometric Analysis of a Decade of the Scientific Activities of the National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization (2009-2018). Librarianship and Information Organization Studies31(2), 38-50. DOI: 10.30484/nastinfo.2020.2465.1931 [In Persian]
Khasseh, A.A., Mokhtari, H., & AsheghiMoaf, M. (2022). Information Retrieval in Iran: a Scientometric Study and Scientific Visualization. Knowledge Retrieval and Semantic Systems9(33), 1-36. DOI: 10.22054/jks.2022.64246.1476 [In Persian]
Khasseh, A.A., Soheili, F., & Chelak, A.M. (2018). An author co-citation analysis of 37 years of iMetrics. The Electronic Library, 36(2), 319-337. DOI:10.1108/EL-09-2016-0191
Kim, S., Choi, B.S., Kim, B., & Kim, K.M. (2017). Co-Author Networks in Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry28(2), 149-154.‏ https://doi.org/10.5765/jkacap.2017.28.2.149
Makizadeh, F., Hazeri, A., Razmjoo, F., & Soheili, F. (2017). A Study on scientific output of Iranian Nano Technology Journals and analyses of Co– Authorship network structure. Rahyaft27(65), 51-65. [In Persian]
Marco, F.J.G. (2016). The evolution of thesauri and the history of knowledge organization: Between the sword of mapping knowledge and the wall of keeping it simple. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, 10(1), 1-11. DOI:10.36311/1981-1640.2016.v10n1.01.p1
Marefat, R., Saberi, M., Abdolmajid, A., Zoodranj, M. (2012). A Survey on collaboration rate of authors in presenting scientific papers in Koomesh journal during 1999-2010. Koomesh, 3(43), 279-285. [In Persian]
Mohammadzadeh, F., Fahimifar, S., & Hasanzadeh, M. (2021). Investigating and Visualization of Iranian highly cited papers in order to discover the most effective at the international level in the period of ten years 2007-2017. Scientometrics Research Journal7(23), 77-98. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2020.3850.1241 [In Persian]
Noche Nasar, H.R., Shams, G.R., & Ghanei Rad, M.A. (2022). Analysis of the Social Network of Co-Authorship of Internal Articles of Faculty Members in the Field of Educational Sciences of Governmental Universities in Tehran. Scientometrics Research Journal8(2), 31-52. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2021.13493.1455 [In Persian]
Osareh, F., Soheili, F., Farajpahlo, A., & Moarefzadeh, A. (2012). A survay on centrality measure in co-authorship networks in information science journals. Library and Information Science Research2(1), 181-200. DOI: 10.22067/riis.v2i2.13610 [In Persian]
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of information Science, 28(6), 441-453.‌ DOI:10.1177/016555150202800601
SadatMosavi, A., & Nooshinfard, F. (2015). The Co-Authorship social network structure of countries in the field of nuclear science and technology analysis: the micro and macro level indicators. Academic Librarianship and Information Research49(3), 339-353. DOI: 10.22059/jlib.2015.57950 [In Persian]
Salatino, A., Aggarwal, T., Mannocci, A., Osborne, F., & Motta, E. (2025). A survey on knowledge organization systems of research fields: Resources and challenges. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(2), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.04432
Sedighi, M. (2017). Analysis of the status of Iranian scientific production in some subject areas by scientometric and social network analysis indicators. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management32(4), 967-988. DOI: 10.35050/JIPM010.2017.021 [In Persian]
Smith, M.K., & Lewis, M. (2018). Supporting the professional development of English language teachers: facilitative mentoring. Routledge.
Soheili, F., & Osareh, F. (2014). A Survey on Density and Size of Co-authorship Networks in Information Science Journals. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management29(2), 351-372. DOI: 10.35050/JIPM010.2014.038 [In Persian]
Soheili, F., Khasseh, A., & Koranian, P. (2018). Thematic trends of concepts in Knowledge and Information Science based on co-word analysis in Iran. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies29(2), 171-190. DOI: 10.30484/nastinfo.2018.2233 [In Persian]
Yeo, M., & Lewis, M. (2019). Co-Authoring in Action: Practice, Problems and Possibilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research7(3), 109-123.‌ DOI:10.30466/ijltr.2019.120739
Zheng, J., Gong, J., Li, R., Hu, K., Wu, H., & Yang, S. (2017). Community evolution analysis based co-author network: a case study of academic communities of the journal of “Annals of the Association of American Geographers”. Scientometrics113(2), 845-865.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2515-7.
Zhu, W. (2025). How is the development of library and information science in China?. Library Hi Tech, 43(1), 204-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-04-2023-0148
Zou, Q. (2018). Represent Changes of Knowledge Organization Systems on the Semantic Web. International Journal of Librarianship, 3(1), 67-77. https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2018.vol3.1.64