1 Department of Librarianship and Medical Information Sciences, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences and Students Research Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences,

2 Department of Knowledge and Information Sciences, School of Literature and Humanities, Lorestan University, Lorestan

3 Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

4 Department of Librarianship and Medical Information Sciences, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, IsfahanDepartment of Librarianship and Medical Information Sciences, Virtual School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


BACKGROUND: The study aimed to assess interdisciplinary communication among various
Educational and Research Departments of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IUMS) in clinical
medical sciences using social network analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out using scientometrics method and
interdisciplinary communication network analysis. Interdisciplinary network of 1298 articles in medical
sciences published in Journal of Isfahan Medical School was evaluated using macro‑ and micro‑level
criteria of network analysis. Ravar Matrix, UCINET, and VOSviewer software were used to analyze
the interdisciplinary network of medical sciences articles.
RESULTS: Findings showed that “Students Research Committee” and “School of Medicine,” the
affiliations of the medical students in general practice with scores of 272 and 197, “Epidemiology and
Biostatistics,” “Community Medicine,” and “Internal Medicine” with 170, 101, and 99, respectively,
possessed the first ranking of productivity index in scientific communication. Furthermore, in
betweenness centrality index, “Epidemiology and Biostatistics” (3427.807), “Students Research
Committee” (2967.180), and “Community Medicine” (1770.300) have an appropriate position in
the network. Based on the centrality index, “Epidemiology and Biostatistics” (22.412), “Students
Research Committee” (22.185) as well as “Community Medicine” and “School of Medicine” (both
21.554) acquired the least amount of distance with other nodes in network.
CONCLUSION: Given the increased specialization in medical fields in recent years, communication
between researchers with various specializations and creation of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary
departments had turned into an undeniable necessity. Therefore, communication between educational
or research departments can facilitate the flow of information between researchers; and consequently,
the top ranking departments in this study had more participation in scientific production of IUMS
and getting more scores in annual evaluation by scientometrics department. This network analysis
showed that researchers in various medical fields closely collaborate with each other and are able
to connect with <2 intermediates.


1. Kiely R. Medical Information on the Internet: A Guide for Health
Professionals. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2003. p. 84.
2. Salager‑Meyer F. Scientific publishing in developing countries:
Challenges for the future. J Engl Acad Purp 2008;7:121‑32.
3. Ofori‑Adjei D, Antes G, Tharyan P, Slade E, Tamber PS. Have
online international medical journals made local journals
obsolete? PLoS Med 2006;3:e359.
4. Kiani M, Mansurian Y. Using Qualitative Research to Analyze
the Pattern of Health Experts of Medical Images. Available
kiani‑A‑10‑1044‑3‑ec37f48.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 Feb 24].
5. Zare‑Farashbandi F, Geraei E, Siamaki S. Study of co‑authorship
network of papers in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
using social network analysis. J Res Med Sci 2014;19:41‑6.
6. Davarpanah MR, Adamian R. The effect of development of the
countries on the visibility of the co‑authorship articles. Libr Inf
Sci 2012;2:149‑70.
7. Lundberg J, Tomson G, Lundkvist I, Skar J, Brommels M.
Exploring the adequacy of measuring university‑industry
collaboration through co‑authorship and funding. Scientometrics
8. Racherla P, Hu C. A social network perspective of tourism
research collaborations. Ann Tour Res 2010;37:1012‑34.9. Danesh F, Abdulmajid AH, Rahimi A, Babaie F. Collaboration
rate among researchers in research center of IUMS in carrying
out research projects. Health Inf Manage 2009;6:43‑52.
10. Vatankhah F. Scientific productivity of Zahedan University of
medical sciences. Zahedan J Res Med Sci 2012;14:52‑7.
11. Nouri R, Danesh F, Karimian J, Papi A. Scientific production
of academic members in web of science during 2000‑2005 and
effective factors: A case study in Isfahan University of Medical
Sciences. Irandoc Sci Commun Mon J 2010;17:1‑4.
12. Yu S, Kak S. A Survey of Prediction Using Social Media. ArXiv
E‑prints. Available from:
papers/1203/1203.1647.pdf. [Last cited on 2012 Sep 01].
13. Kronegger L, Mali F, Ferligoj A, Doreian P. Collaboration structures
in Slovenian Scientific Communities. Scientometrics 2012;90:631‑47.
14. Tavakolizadeh Ravari M. Ravarmatrix: Concordancing Software.
2nd Vers. [Computer Software]. Available from: http://www.‑11.aspx. [Last cited on 2015 Nov 18].
15. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. UCINET for Windows:
Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic
Technologies; 2002.
16. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. VOSviewer. Leiden, Netherland: Leiden
University, Centre for Science and Technology Studies; 2009.
17. Miguel S, Chinchilla‑Rodriguez Z, Gonzalez C, de Moya Anegon F.
Analysis and visualization of the dynamics of research groups in
terms of projects and co‑authored publications. A case study of
library and information science in Argentina. Inf Res 2012;17:524.
18. Cheong F, Corbit B. A social network analysis of the co‑authorship
network of the Australian Conference of Information Systems
from 1990‑2006. In: Proceedings of 17th European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS 2009). Verona, Italy, 8‑10 June, 2009.
p. 2‑13.
19. Abbasi A, Hossain L, Leydesdorff L. Betweenness centrality as
a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research
collaboration networks. J Informetr 2012;6:403‑12.
20. Amiri MR. Collaboration in authorship: Methods and benefits.
Ketabmah 2004;84:32‑5.
21. Erfanmanesh M, Basirian Jahromi R. The co‑authorship network of
the articles published in the National Studies on librarianship and
information organization journal using social networks analysis
indexes. Natl Stud Libr Inf Organ J 2013;24:76‑96.
22. Mazaheri E, Papi A, Zare‑Farashbandi F, Geraei E. Study of
Co‑authorship and social network index of medical domain:
A case study. J Isfahan Med Sch 2016;34:436‑43.
23. Kretschmer H. Author productivity and geodesic distance in
bibliographic co‑authorship networks and visibility of the web.
Scientometrics 2004;60:409‑20.
24. Abazari Z, Riahi A, Sohbatiha F, Siamian H, Yamin Firoz M.
A comparative study of medical journals and articles growth
in Eastern mediterranean regional office member countries.
Payavard Salamat J 2015;9:235‑48.
25. Ramezani A, Mohammadi AM. Social Networks Analysis with
Education of UCINET SoĞware. Tehran: Sociologists; 2012.