Document Type : Original Article



Background: Research is essential for development. In other words, scientific development
of each country can be evaluated by researchers’ scientific production. Understanding
and assessing the activities of researchers for planning and policy making is essential. The
significance of collaboration in the production of scientific publications in today’s complex world
where technology is everything is very apparent. Scientists realized that in order to get their work
wildly used and cited to by experts, they must collaborate. The collaboration among researchers
results in the development of scientific knowledge and hence, attainment of wider information.
The main objective of this research is to survey scientific production and collaboration rate in
philosophy and theoretical bases of medical library and information sciences in ISI, SCOPUS,
and Pubmed databases during 2001‑2010. Materials and Methods: This is a descriptive survey
and scientometrics methods were used for this research. Then data gathered via check list and
analyzed by the SPSS software. Collaboration rate was calculated according to the formula.
Results: Among the 294 related abstracts about philosophy, and theoretical bases of medical
library and information science in ISI, SCOPUS, and Pubmed databases during 2001‑2010, the
year 2007 with 45 articles has the most and the year 2003 with 16 articles has the least number
of related collaborative articles in this scope. “B. Hjorland” with eight collaborative articles had
the most one among Library and Information Sciences (LIS) professionals in ISI, SCOPUS,
and Pubmed. Journal of Documentation with 29 articles and 12 collaborative articles had the
most related articles. Medical library and information science challenges with 150 articles had
first place in number of articles. Results also show that the most elaborative country in terms
of collaboration point of view and number of articles was US. “University of Washington” and
“University Western Ontario” are the most elaborative affiliation from a collaboration point.
Conclusion: The average collaboration rate between researchers in this field during the years
studied is 0.25. The most completive reviewed articles are single authors that included 60.54%
of the whole articles. Only 30.46% of articles were provided with two or more than two authors.


1. Garfield E, Soren WP, Wolfgang S. HistCited™: A software tool for
informatics analysis of citation linkage. Inf Praxis 2006;1:391‑400.
2. Osareh F. Higher education research collaboration between Iran and
UK. In Proceedings of COLLNET Meeting Extra Session in Conjuction
with 10th ISSI Conference on Scientometrics. Stockholm, Sweden:
Proceedings of COLLNET Meeting; 2005 July 28.
3. Katz JS, Martin BR. What is research collaboration? London: ERSRC
Center for Science, Technology, Energy and Environment; 1995. p. 95.
4. Osareh F. Collaboration in astronomy knowledge production:
A case study in science direct from 2000‑2004. In Proceedings of
10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetric.
Stockholm, Sweden: Proceedings of 10th International Conference
on Scientometrics and Informetric; 2006 July 24‑28.
5. Sengupta IN. The growth of knowledge and literature in
neuroscience. Scientometrics 1989;17:253‑88.
6. Gomez I, Fernández TM, Méndez A. Collaboration patterns of Spanish
scientific publication in different research areas and disciplines. Presented of Proceedings of the 5th Biennial International Conference
of the International Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics
Learned Information. Medford NJ, ETATS‑UNIS; 1995 Sep 6‑10.
7. Osareh F, Wilson CS. Collaboration in Iranian scientific publications.
Libri 2002;52:88‑98.
8. Wilson CS, Osareh F. Science and research in Iran: A scientometrics
study. Interdiscip Sci Rev 2003;28:26‑37.
9. Belinchon I, Ramos MJ, Sanchez‑Yus E, Betlloch I. Dermatological
scientific production from European union authors. Scientometrics
10. Shaikevich IM. Scientific collaboration of new 10 EU countries in
the field ofsocialsciences. Inf Process Manag 2006;42:1592‑8.
11. Ho YS. Bibliometric analysis of biosorption technology in water
treatment and from 1991 to2004. Int J Environ Pollut 2008;34:1‑13.
12. Jonkers K, Tijssen R. Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts
of international mobility on research collaboration and scientific
productivity. Scintometircs 2008;77:309‑33.