Scientometrics Research Journal (24233773)(1)
Purpose: One of the most important scientific components is the scientific productivity of authors. This concept, which does not have a clear definition in the literature, has been investigated in various researches. Also, the review of the literature shows the dispersion of the subject in this field. From the individual and personality characteristics of the authors to the role of environmental and social issues on scientific produc-tivity, attention has been paid in this field. It is not known, correctly, what is the emphasis of the related literature? And which are the trends and the hot topics of this field? So, the main goal of the present study was to investigate and illustrate trends and hot topics that pertain to au-thors‟ scientific productivity. Methodology: The current research is practical in terms of purpose and has been carried out with a scientometric approach using knowledge mapping. To achieve this, 6482 publications from 2000 to 2022 were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database and analyzed using CiteSpace Software (Advanced version). In alignment with the study's objective, keyword co-occurrence (to identify clusters), between-ness centrality (to pinpoint research frontiers), and citation burstness (to highlight significant works, hot topics, and keywords in specific periods) indicators were utilized. Additionally, clustering was conducted. Finally, the historical developments and milestones of this field were analyzed through a timeline view. Findings: Findings showed that out of the data extracted, 11 clusters with a density of 0.0438 and a harmonic mean of 0.4938 were identified-which indicates weak interconnections in the network. The most important clusters were “h-Index” (size=284), “gender” (size=244), and “research effects” (size=202). Other clusters related to authors‟ scientific productivity included “technology transfer”, “social work education”, “social network analysis”, “academic promotion”, “incentive structure”, “references”, “teamwork”, and “scientometric analysis” based on their sizes. Hirsch‟s work in 2005, with a value of 0.27, held the highest be-tweenness centrality. An analysis of works' citation burstiness suggested that the works in the scientific productivity domain had experienced two citation burstiness periods: the first period involved the presentation and evaluation of the “h-Index” (from 2000 to 2012), and the second period focused on the evaluation and development of “existing tools” to assess authors‟ scientific productivity (from 2012 to 2022). The hot topics under study were “evaluating academic communities” (2000-2002), “authors‟ ranking indicators” (2002-2018), and “knowledge exchange” (2018-2022). The subject of “knowledge exchange”, a new issue, focuses on international interactions, communications, and the social and economic effects of literature (in addition to their scientific effects). The history of authors‟ scientific productivity began with Lotka's rule of works‟ crea-tors‟ scientific productivity, followed by the introduction of “citations” as one of the most important evaluation criteria for authors‟ scientific productivity, developed by Garfield. In addition to Hirsch‟s work, other approaches, such as “mapping of science” software and “gender inequalities”, were used to trace the historical developments of scientific productivity. Conclusion: According to the findings of the present research, the H-index remains the most crucial index for evaluating the scientific productivity of authors. Despite some flaws, this index claims to measure both the impact and quantity of scientific productivity of authors and is widely accepted by the scientific community. It indicates that as the number of works increases, the likelihood of receiving citations also increases, lead-ing to enhanced scientific productivity. Given that the scientific productivity of authors, researchers, and university faculty members is vital for employment, it is imperative to enhance academic and scientific posi-tions during employment processes. The results of this study could provide assistance to experts and researchers alike. © 2024, Shahed University. All rights reserved.
