http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Webology, Volume 16, Number 2, December, 2019 Home Table of Contents Titles & Subject Index Authors Index A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of the Scientific Publications of Universities: A Study of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences during 1992-2018 Heidar Mokhtari Assistant Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran. ORCID: 0000-0002-2471-0408. E-mail: h.mokhtari@pnu.ac.ir Seyedeh Zahra Mirezati Student Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. ORCID: 0000-0001-8922-2731. E-mail: z.mirezati69@gmail.com Mohammad Karim Saberi Corresponding author, Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Paramedicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. ORCID: 0000-0002-2471-0408. E-mail: m.saberi@umsha.ac.ir Farzaneh Fazli Ph.D., Library and Information Science, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. ORCID: 0000-0003-3705-6422. E-mail: farzanehiri@yahoo.com Mohammad Kharabati-Neshin M.Sc. Medical Library and Information Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. ORCID: 0000-0002-0512-0840. E-mail: m.kharabati@gmail.com Received September 25, 2019; Accepted December 20, 2019 188 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Abstract The evaluation of universities from different perspectives is important for their scientific development. Analyzing the scientific papers of a university under the bibliometric approach is one main evaluative approach. The aim of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis and visualization of papers published by Hamadan University of Medical Science (HUMS), Iran, during 1992-2018. This study used bibliometric and visualization techniques. Scopus database was used for data collection. 3753 papers were retrieved by applying Affiliation Search in Scopus advanced search section. Excel and VOSviewer software packages were used for data analysis and bibliometric indicator extraction. An increasing trend was seen in the numbers of HUMS's published papers and received citations. The highest rate of collaboration in national level was with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Internationally, HUMS's researchers had the highest collaboration with the authors from the United States, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, respectively. All highly-cited papers were published in high level Q1 journals. Term clustering demonstrated four main clusters: epidemiological studies, laboratory studies, pharmacological studies, and microbiological studies. The results of this study can be beneficial to the policy-makers of this university. In addition, researchers and bibliometricians can use this study as a pattern for studying and visualizing the bibliometric indicators of other universities and research institutions. Keywords Scientific publications; Bibliometric analysis; Visualization; Co-authorship Introduction One main criterion for determining the scientific placement of a country is the scientific publications produced by its universities and research institutes (Archambault et al., 2008). Publishing scientific papers is an inseparable part of the academic life (Chan et al., 2009) and the main output of scientific performance (Jacobson, 1997). Thousands of papers are annually published by researchers worldwide. They can be evaluated in different levels, including author, institution, country and subject levels. Bibliometrics is a common way of evaluating scientific publications from different perspectives. Before coining the term "bibliometrics", Hulme (1923) used "statistical bibliography" in 1923. He defined statistical bibliography as a method for studying the science and technology history with counting documents and papers. In Aslib Annual Conference in UK in 1948, S. R. Ranganathan used the term "librametry" and explained its application (Sengupta, 1999). In 1969, Pritchard (1969) replaced the term statistical bibliography with the term bibliometrics and conceived it as the application of mathematics and statistical methods to books and other media 189 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf of communication. In line with this definition, the British Standard Glossary of Documentation of Terms (1976) defined bibliometrics as studying the use of documents and publication patterns by applying mathematical and statistical methods (cf. Kannan & Thanuskodi, 2019). Ackermann (2005) defined bibliometrics as the quantitative analysis of scientific texts (documents) based on publication and citation data. Bibliometrics depicts the scientific communications among authors, institutions and countries (Özkose & Gencer, 2017). As a research field, it analyses the scientific publications, citations and references (Merigó et al., 2015). It is a tool for assessing the research state in a journal, field, research institution and country. It can bridge the possible gaps in scientific knowledge and demonstrate its trend and plays a main role in the management of / and decision-making on science and technology (Romanelli et al., 2018). 50 years after its emergence, bibliometrics is ever used for research evaluation. In the past, researchers used simple bibliometric analyses for journal papers, research fields, universities and institutes. In recent years, bibliometric analysis and visualization are simultaneously used as a mixed method for making better scientometric analyses. It appears that the traditional and simple bibliometric analyses are not enough for better mapping the scientific activity and some visualization is needed. Nowadays, many software packages have been designed for facilitating bibliometric analyses. As a new approach to bibliometric studies, this can be defined as "visualization of literature" or "visualization of information" (Milojevic, 2009). Some scientific phenomena and communications are abstract and visualization tries to detect and depict such invisible notions in the structure of science in the form of a graphical multidimensional map. Visualization represents the importance or significance by using a size symbol (e.g. large symbols for main categories) or color (e.g. bright colors for low-important entities) (Synnestvedt & Chen, 2005). In addition, it applies a threshold (e.g. a citation threshold for 50 authors with high citations) for determining the categories that appear in the map. In general, visualization is a powerful tool for studying the structure and dynamics of research publications. It is complementary to bibliometrics, helpful in doing better evaluation and analysis of the scientific output (Özkose et al., 2017; Noyons, 1999; Noyons, 2004; van Eck et al., 2010). Each university or research institute should continuously monitor its past and present states for mapping its future perspectives. As one of Iranian known medical universities, the Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (HUMS), located in Hamadan province, Iran started its work in medicine, nursing and hygiene fields with the help of Université de Montpellie (UM). With 10 colleges, 17 research centers, 3 research institutes, one business incubator, one central and 12 branch and hospital libraries, HUMS is active in more than 98 disciplines in medical, paramedical and basic sciences in different educational levels. It has about 5886 students and 458 faculty members (HUMS, 2019). The first paper of the university indexed in Scopus belonged to 1992. After then, about 2000 papers of the university were indexed in Scopus. As a result, an allinclusive study needs to be conducted for analyzing all publications of HUMS. Such a study 190 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf helps in identifying the past and present states of its research output as well as determining its weaknesses and strengths in the scientific performance. The results of this study can be beneficial to policy-makers of this university. In addition, this bibliometric and visualization study can be a pattern for analyzing the scientific performance of other universities and research institutes worldwide. Literature Review Bibliometrics is a main research field with a long history. After being coined, bibliomerics changed in a topic of interest and many researchers used bibiometric techniques. These studies are in four main categories: bibliometric analyses of research fields, scientific journals, publishing countries and regions, and universities and research institutes. Some studies analyzed research fields such as RFID' publications (de Oliveira et al., 2019); tuberculosis (Nafade et al., 2018); lncRNA (Zhai et al., 2018); urban education (Liang & Wang, 2018); environmental damage (Li et al., 2018); linguistics (Mohsen et al., 2017); information architecture (Taga et al., 2017); fuzzy research (Merigó et al., 2015); welding (Layus and Kah, 2015); computer science (Uddin et al., 2015); and entrepreneurship (Landström et al., 2012). Other studies considered scientific journals such as Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (Mokhtari, Roumiyani & Saberi, 2019); Sustainability (Tang et al., 2018a); Journal of Infection and Public Health (Krauskopf, 2018); Journal of Psychology (Tur-Porcar, 2018); Journal of Knowledge Management (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018); Journal of Religion and Health (Şenel & Demir, 2018); European Journal of Marketing (Martínez-López, 2018); International Journal of Fuzzy Systems (Tang et al., 2018); Journal of School Health (Zhang et al., 2017); European Journal of Operational Research (Laengle et al., 2017); Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science (Bakri & Willett, 2017); Journal of Oral Research (Corrales-Reyes et al., 2016); and Electronic Library Journal (Hussain, Fatima & Kumar, 2011). The scientific publications of several regions and countries have been underwent bibliometric analyses, including among others Cuba (Corrales-Reyes et al. 2019); Iran (Chalak et al., 2018); Guatemala (Monge-Nájera & Ho, 2018); Ghana (Osei Boamah & Ho, 2018); Nicaragua (MongeNájera & Ho, 2017); Czech (Fiala & Ho, 2017); Spain (Bueno-Aguilera, et al, 2016); China (Jiang et al, 2014); Greek (Sachini et al., 2015); South America (Huamaní et al. 2014); Western Ghats (Saravanan, 2012); Africa (Chuang et al., 2011); South Africa (Kahn, 2011); Venezuela (Rojas-Sola & Jorda-Albinana, 2010); and Brazill (Da Luz et al., 2008). In some bibliometric researches, the scientific publications of research institutes and universities have been studied. Some recent studies on the topic were summarized as follows. Ahmed et al. (2019) conducted a bibliometric study, entitled as "Bibliometric analysis of 191 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf research publications of Al-Jouf University, Saudi Arabia, during the years 2006-2017". Using Scopus database, they found that the university published 801 papers in the studied years, with a considerable scientific growth during 2013-2017 when two-thirds of papers were published. The number of citations per paper was 4.53 with the highest citation rate amounted to 6.26 in 2016. The highest rate of national collaboration was with King Abdulaziz University. Five hundred ninety-one papers (73.78%) were authored with an international co-authorship pattern. Egypt (with 388 papers) and Malaysia (with 45 papers) ranked first and second in collaborating with the university, respectively. The most preferred journal for Al-Jouf University' authors was the International Medical Journal. Darmadji et al. (2018) conducted a research under the title "Research productivity and international collaboration of top Indonesian universities" and identified top Indonesian universities' papers indexed in Scopus during 2001-2017. They found a significantly increased trend in the number of these papers during the studied period. The most prolific institute was the Bandung Institute of Technology with 7828 papers. Japanese researchers had the highest collaboration with co-authoring 3907 papers. In a paper entitled as "Research productivity at King Saud bin Abdul Aziz University for Health Sciences, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a bibliometric appraisal", Haq (2017) analyzed 775 papers of the university that were indexed in Web of Science from its inception to 2015. The majority of papers (15.35%) were written on the subject of medicine. Most papers (178) were published in 2015. The majority of papers (46%) were published in the Saudi Medical Journal. Research cooperation with the universities of United States was the highest, with co-authoring 39 papers. In a study titled as "Publications of Banaras Hindu University during 1989-2016: a threedimensional bibliometric study", Dwivedi (2017) studied 16556 records indexed in the Web of Science. An exponential growth of publications was seen since 2005. Chemistry has maximum publications, followed by physics. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research was the main collaborator with 443 papers. The main collaborator country was the United States with 607 papers, followed by Germany with 471 papers. Tsafe, Chiya and Aminu (2016) conducted a bibliometric research under the title "Scholarly publications of librarians in universities in Nigeria: 2000-2012: A bibliometric analysis". One hundred sixty five librarians from 16 universities of the country were taken for the study. Selfdesigned questionnaire was used for data collection. Total number of papers authored by the librarians was 373, mostly on information technology. The majority of them (56.9%) had published at least one paper. Male librarians published more (81.2%) than female librarians (18.8%). In a paper titled as "Bibliometric analysis of research publications of Maharshi Dayanand University (Rohtak) during 2000-2013", Siwach and Kumar (2015) studied the research 192 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf contributions (1247 papers) of the university in terms of its publication output during 2000-2013 as reflected through Scopus database. Results showed that the average number of citations per paper was 6. The trends in published papers and received citations were increasing. The highest number of indexed papers (455 papers) belonged to chemistry. The most highly-productive journal was Indian Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry with 71 papers. Sweileh et al. (2014) published a paper titled as "Assessing the scientific research productivity of the Palestinian higher education institutions: A case study at An-Najah National University, Palestine". They analyzed growth, contribution, and impact of research carried out by the faculty members, researchers, or students of the university in the past 35 years. A total of 791 published papers were retrieved for this university in Scopus. Seventeen documents (2.1%) were published in Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online, as the most productive journal. The majority of papers (146) were in medical field. The study identified 384 (25.8%) papers with 59 countries as foreign collaborators, with the United States as the first-ranked country with 94 papers. In "A bibliometric analysis of the research output of Sambalpur University's publication in Web of Science during 2007-2011", Maharana and Sethi (2013) studied 170 papers of the university indexed in the database. Results showed that the majority of papers (47) were in chemistry. Most papers were published in Astrophysics and Space Science Journal. The highest indexed papers belonged to Indian Institute of Technology. The United States ranked first in collaboration with Sambalpur University. In summarization, it can be said that considering the increasing trend in the scientific publication, evaluating the scientific performance of research institutes is necessary. Universities can use their bibliometric analyses for being informed of their strengths and weaknesses in the scientific production. By using the results of bibliometric analyses, researchers and decision-makers can detect the possible gaps, regulate grants and research resources based on these results and make correct decisions on future programs on the scientific development. Materials and Methods This study used bibliometric techniques and scientific visualization approaches. Scopus was applied for data collection, as the database has been used in many bibliometric studies due to its full coverage of scientific publications and citations (e.g. Sabah et al., 2019; Kamdem et al., 2019; Atayero et al., 2018; Ho et al., 2017; Kazerani et al., 2017; Rondanelli et al., 2016; Batooli et al., 2016; Zyoud et al., 2014; Zyoud et al., 2015; Yessirkepov et al., 2015; Zarei et al. 2015; Sa'ed et al., 2014). Scopus was established in 2004 by Elsevier, one of the great international publishers in the World. It became one of the main famous citation databases. It provides the bibliographic 193 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf information and abstracts of papers as well as citation-related data of indexed journals and paper rankings based on their received citations (Falagas et al., 2008). By searching Scopus, influential authors, papers, institutions, countries and journals can be identified. It includes many items, including among others, journal articles, conference papers and proceedings, patents, books, editorial notes, letters to editor, reports, reviews and trade documents (Kulkarni et al., 2009). For retrieving data, the "affiliation search" section in Scopus advanced search section was used for searching for all scientific publications of HUMS until 2018. As the researchers in this university used two forms for their affiliation, the following formula in advanced search section of Scopus was applied: AF-ID ("Hamedan University of Medical Sciences" 60006672) OR AF-ID ("Hamedan University of Medical Sciences Besat Hospital" 60089189) AND (EXCLUDE (PUBYEAR, 2019)) In total, 3753 papers were retrieved and their bibliographic data extracted. At first, the trends in publications and received citations were studied. Then, the annual citation structures as well as the h-indexes with and without self-citations were analyzed. In addition, the national and international collaborations were studied, followed by determining the more influential and highly-productive authors, highly-cited papers and highly-productive journals. At last, the main subjects of papers were depicted by the clustering technique. Excell and VOSviewer were used for data analysis. VOSviewer aims at facilitating bibliometric analyses and helpful in visualizing and mapping co-authorship, co-citation and co-occurrence patterns (Van Eck, 2009). It presents the scientific maps in various formats by focusing on specific determined aspects. Magnifying, scrolling and searching are some of its features. Findings Scientific publications and received citations Figure 1 shows the frequency distribution of papers published by HUMS during 1992-2018. In total, 3753 papers published by the authors affiliated to the university. The first paper was published by H. Pour-Jafari in Veterinary and Human Toxicology and titled as "Alterations of libido in gased Iranian men". The highest number of papers (664) published in 2018. No paper was published in 1993. The lowest number of published papers belonged to 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000, with only one paper in each. Three recent years (2016, 2017 and 2018) had the high numbers in published papers, including 49 percent of all papers. With an increasing trend, the number of papers increased from one paper in 1992 to 664 papers in 2018. Figure 2 depicts the trend in citations received by the papers published by HUMS during 19922018. As can be seen, received citations showed an increasing trend, too. The number of received citations increased from 4 citations in 1992 to 4713 citations in 2018. As the citing process is time-consuming, the number of received citations in 2018 will certainly increase. 194 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Figure 1. The frequency distribution of papers published by HUMS during 1992-2018 4 0 1 0 2 6 4 7 8 1 3 4 5 3 7 2 7 6 2 1 7 0 3 1 2 4 5 5 1 0 6 4 1 0 9 8 1 5 7 0 1 6 0 1 1 4 8 0 2 1 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 7 0 2 4 7 8 2 7 7 7 3 1 5 4 4 7 1 3 1 6 5 6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 C it at io n s Year Figure 2. The frequency distribution of citations received by published papers of HUMS during 1992-2018 195 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf The annual citation structure Table 1 shows the annual structure of citations received by HUMS's published papers in the studied period. Out of 3753 published papers, 2863 papers (76.29%) received one or more citations. In other words, only 23.71 percent of papers received no citations. Cited papers received 29650 citations in total (7.90 citations per paper). Fifteen papers (.40%) received ≥100 citations. Table 1. Annual citation structure of citations received by HUMS's published papers during 1992-2018 Year ≥100 ≥50 ≥40 ≥30 ≥20 ≥10 ≥1 0 TP TC CPP 2018 3 2 1 1 5 15 315 322 664 1656 2.49 2017 5 1 1 2 5 47 351 177 589 4713 8.00 2016 1 2 2 8 12 78 337 129 569 3154 5.54 2015 0 1 4 11 26 53 212 54 361 2777 7.69 2014 0 0 1 6 22 68 186 55 338 2478 7.33 2013 0 5 5 12 11 43 155 40 271 2370 8.75 2012 2 3 6 3 19 44 117 35 229 2361 10.31 2011 1 3 3 8 15 50 81 23 184 2111 11.47 2010 1 3 2 8 8 20 69 15 126 1480 11.75 2009 1 4 3 3 8 31 49 11 110 1601 14.55 2008 1 3 7 4 14 15 33 11 88 1570 17.84 2007 0 3 3 6 8 18 29 3 70 1098 15.69 2006 0 4 4 2 7 21 31 8 77 1064 13.82 2005 0 3 2 0 1 6 13 6 31 455 14.68 2004 0 1 1 3 3 1 5 1 15 313 20.87 2003 0 1 0 1 0 2 8 0 12 170 14.17 2002 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 6 62 10.33 2001 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 27 9.00 2000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 37 37.00 1999 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 45 45.00 1998 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 13 6.50 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 8.00 1996 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 47 47.00 1995 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 26 26.00 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 10 5.00 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 4.00 Total 15 39 47 80 166 514 2002 890 3753 29650 7.90 % 0.40 1.04 1.25 2.13 4.42 13.70 53.34 23.71 100.00 TP: Total Papers; TC: Total Citations; CPP: Citations per Paper 196 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf H-indexes of papers with and without self-citations Table 2 shows the h-indexes of published papers of HUMS during 1992-2018 before and after removing self-citations. Of 29650 received citations, 6934 (23.38%) were self-citations, i.e. citations received by the authors affiliated to HUMS. The highest h-index before excluding selfcitations was 25 and belonged to 2015. The lowest h-index before excluding self-citations was 1 and belonged to years 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000. As no papers were published in 1993, the h-index in this year was 0. For detecting the effect of self-citations on annual h-indexes, it is needed that the h-indexes are compared with and without self-citations. As table 2 shows, after excluding self-citations, the highest h-index decreased from 25 to 20. This not the case in the lowest h-index amounted to 1. The highest h-index after excluding self-citations was 21 and belonged to the years 2012 and 2013 and the lowest h-index was 1 and belonged to the years 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000. Table 2. The frequency distribution of papers, citations, self-citations and h-indexes of papers published by HUMS during 1992-2018 Year Total papers Total citations H-index with selfcitations Selfcitations Citations without selfcitations H-index without selfcitations 1992 1 4 1 0 4 1 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 2 10 2 0 10 2 1995 1 26 1 13 13 1 1996 1 47 1 1 46 1 1997 1 8 1 0 8 1 1998 2 13 2 1 12 2 1999 1 45 1 6 39 1 2000 1 37 1 20 17 1 2001 3 27 2 8 19 2 2002 6 62 4 10 52 3 2003 12 170 7 14 156 6 2004 15 313 9 56 257 8 2005 31 455 11 88 367 10 2006 77 1064 19 182 882 18 2007 70 1098 20 180 918 18 2008 88 1570 22 267 1303 20 2009 110 1601 19 269 1332 18 2010 126 1480 21 204 1276 19 2011 184 2111 23 462 1649 19 197 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf 2012 229 2361 23 461 1900 21 2013 271 2370 24 539 1831 21 2014 338 2478 22 590 1888 18 2015 362 2777 25 845 1932 20 2016 568 3154 21 922 2232 18 2017 589 4713 17 1235 3478 13 2018 664 1656 15 561 1095 12 Total 3753 29650 53 6934 22716 47 National and International Collaborations The frequency distribution of national collaborations made by HUMS's researchers is shown in Table 3. The first rank belonged to Tehran University of Medical Sciences collaborating in authoring 740 papers, followed by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences with 503 papers and Iran University of Medical Sciences with 291 papers. About 41 percent of HUMS's national collaboration was with these three universities. Table 3. Top 20 national institutions collaborating with HUMS during 1992-2018 Rank Afflation Total papers % 1 Tehran University of Medical Sciences 740 19.72 2 Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 503 13.40 3 Iran University of Medical Sciences 291 7.75 4 Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences 240 6.39 5 Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences 173 4.61 6 Bu-Ali Sina University 141 3.76 7 Isfahan University of Medical Sciences 139 3.70 8 Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 131 3.49 9 Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 98 2.61 9 Zahedan University of Medical Sciences 98 2.61 10 Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences 92 2.45 11 Ilam University of Medical Sciences 87 2.32 12 Tarbiat Modares University 85 2.26 12 Qom University of Medical Sciences 85 2.26 13 Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences 84 2.24 14 Islamic Azad University 83 2.21 15 Mashhad University of Medical Sciences 78 2.08 16 University of Tehran 71 1.89 17 Pasteur Institute of Iran 66 1.75 18 Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences 65 1.73 19 Guilan University of Medical Sciences 64 1.71 20 Islamic Azad University, Hamedan Branch 64 1.71 20 Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences 62 1.65 198 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf The frequency distribution of international collaborations made by HUMS's researchers is shown in Table 4. It collaborated with 121 countries worldwide. The United States ranked first by authoring 107 papers (2.85%) in collaboration with HUMS, followed by the United Kingdom (1.64%) and Switzerland (1.57%). The lowest collaboration belonged to Barbados, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Hungary, Jamaica, Malawi, Mauritania, and Sudan, each with one paper (.02%). Table 4. Countries collaborating with HUMS during 1992-2018 and the share of their contribution Country Total papers % Country Total papers % Country Total papers % United States 107 2.85 Bangladesh 15 0.39 Palestine 11 0.29 United Kingdom 69 1.84 Colombia 15 0.39 Zambia 11 0.29 Switzerland 59 1.57 Estonia 15 0.39 Argentina 10 0.26 Australia 58 1.55 Ghana 15 0.39 Kazakhstan 10 0.26 Malaysia 55 1.47 Indonesia 15 0.39 Kuwait 10 0.26 Canada 50 1.33 Lebanon 15 0.39 Tunisia 10 0.26 Italy 38 1.01 Mexico 15 0.39 Liberia 9 0.23 Japan 37 0.99 Nepal 15 0.39 Burundi Darussalam 8 0.21 Germany 36 0.96 Peru 15 0.39 Namibia 8 0.21 Sweden 36 0.96 Romania 15 0.39 Bhutan 7 0.18 Finland 28 0.75 United Arab Emirates 15 0.39 Slovenia 7 0.18 India 28 0.75 Viet Nam 15 0.39 Yemen 7 0.18 France 26 0.69 Austria 14 0.37 Armenia 6 0.15 South Korea 26 0.69 Bahrain 14 0.37 Morocco 6 0.15 Netherlands 24 0.63 Benin 14 0.37 Thailand 6 0.15 Turkey 24 0.63 Cameroon 14 0.37 Uganda 6 0.15 Brazil 23 0.61 Chile 14 0.37 Georgia 5 0.13 Norway 23 0.61 Kyrgyzstan 14 0.37 Oman 5 0.13 South Africa 23 0.61 Luxembourg 14 0.37 New Caledonia 4 0.10 China 22 0.58 Panama 14 0.37 Trinidad and Tobago 4 0.10 Pakistan 22 0.58 Philippines 14 0.37 Botswana 3 0.07 Belgium 21 0.55 Afghanistan 13 0.34 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 3 0.07 Hong Kong 20 0.53 Anguilla 13 0.34 Malta 3 0.07 Denmark 19 0.50 Congo 13 0.34 Myanmar 3 0.07 Spain 19 0.50 Federated States of Micronesia 13 0.34 Togo 3 0.07 Iraq 18 0.47 Ireland 13 0.34 Burundi 2 0.05 Poland 18 0.47 Israel 13 0.34 Chad 2 0.05 199 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Saudi Arabia 18 0.47 Mozambique 13 0.34 Cote d'Ivoire 2 0.05 Ethiopia 17 0.45 Qatar 13 0.34 Papua New Guinea 2 0.05 New Zealand 17 0.45 Slovakia 13 0.34 Syrian Arab Republic 2 0.05 Nigeria 17 0.45 Sri Lanka 13 0.34 Uruguay 2 0.05 Egypt 16 0.42 Ukraine 13 0.34 Barbados 1 0.02 Jordan 16 0.42 Bulgaria 12 0.31 Cyprus 1 0.02 Kenya 16 0.42 Costa Rica 12 0.31 Equatorial Guinea 1 0.02 Portugal 16 0.42 Ecuador 12 0.31 Gambia 1 0.02 Russian Federation 16 0.42 Iceland 12 0.31 Hungary 1 0.02 Serbia 16 0.42 Rwanda 12 0.31 Jamaica 1 0.02 Singapore 16 0.42 Tanzania 12 0.31 Malawi 1 0.02 Taiwan 16 0.42 Croatia 11 0.29 Mauritania 1 0.02 Algeria 15 0.39 Greece 11 0.29 Sudan 1 0.02 Figure 3 depicts the co-authorship map of countries with at least 20 papers coauthored by HUMS's researchers. These countries include: United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Australia, Malaysia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Finland, India, France, South Korea, Netherlands, Turkey, Brazil, Norway, South Africa, China, Pakistan, Belgium and Hong Kong. In the co-authorship map, the size of circles demonstrates the magnitude of the publication number and line thickness does that of the co-authorship rate. As can be seen, the high rates of co-authorship belonged to the United States (107 papers), the United Kingdom (69 papers), Switzerland (59 papers), Australia (58 papers) and Malaysia (55 papers). Figure 3. The co-authorship map of countries collaborating with HUMS during 1992-2018 200 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Highly productive and more influential authors The top 20 highly productive authors in HUMS are shown in table 5 according to the number of their published papers. The table includes author names, departments, and the number of coauthors, papers and citations, as well as h-indexes. The most highly-productive author was S. Khazaei with 141 papers and 356 received citations and h-index of 9. J. Poorolajal with 140 papers and M. Saidijam with 107 papers ranked second and third, respectively. Table 5. Top 20 authors of HUMS in terms of number of their papers Rank Authors Department Total papers Total citations Hindex Coauthors 1 Khazaei, S. Health Sciences Research Center 141 356 9 158 2 Poorolajal, J. School of Health 140 1412 19 348 3 Saidijam, M. School of Medicine 107 1258 18 346 4 Alikhani, M.Y. School of Medicine 99 855 15 279 5 Karami, M. School of Health 98 772 12 2136 6 Komaki, A. School of Medicine 89 918 19 171 7 Goodarzi, M.T. School of Medicine 88 1075 18 232 8 Shahidi, S. School of Medicine 81 1019 20 127 9 Moghimbeigi, A. School of Health 78 576 13 211 10 Ayubi, E. School of Medicine 72 576 11 146 10 Mahjub, H. School of Health 72 597 14 153 11 Roshanaei, G. School of Health 71 283 10 208 11 Tavilani, H. School of Medicine 71 1029 19 158 12 Mansori, K. School of Medicine 68 190 7 137 13 Hajilooi, M. School of Medicine 65 642 14 203 14 Asgari, G. School of Health 61 709 15 125 15 Khodadadi, I. School of Medicine 60 413 11 133 16 Bahrami, A. School of Health 56 523 13 93 16 Shobeiri, F. School of Nursing and Midwifery 56 404 13 75 16 Soltanian, A.R. School of Health 56 551 14 270 17 Salehi, I School of Allied Medical Sciences 55 617 16 153 18 Sarihi, A. School of Medicine 54 641 16 101 19 Ghaleiha, A. School of Medicine 53 659 15 184 20 Farhadian, M. School of Health 52 116 5 154 201 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf The co-authorship map of highly-productive authors of HUMS was depicted in figure 4. The top 50 authors were included in the map. The map includes several clusters. Authors with more coauthorship with each other were included in the same cluster. The size of circles shows the magnitude of the paper number and the thickness of lines shows that of the co-authorship rate. The co-authorship map of HUMS consists of 6 clusters. The first cluster (in red) has 20 authors, with J. Poorolajal as the core author with 140 papers. The second cluster (in green) includes 8 authors with M. Saidijam as the core author with 107 published papers. The third cluster (in blue) has 7 authors in which A. Ghaleiha is the core author with 53 papers. The fourth cluster (in yellow) has 6 authors. The fifth cluster (in violet) has 5 authors and the sixth one (in bright blue) has 4 authors. Figure 4. The co-authorship map of highly-productive authors of HUMS during 1992-2018 Top publishing journals Table 6 shows the top ten journals publishing the papers authored by HUMS's researchers during 1992-2018. Most papers of the university were published in the Journal of Research in Health Sciences, followed by Iranian Journal of Public Health and Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. Of these journals, 5, 2 and 3 journals are in Quartiles 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Of them, 8 journals are from Iran. 202 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Table 6. Top ten journals publishing papers of HUMS during 1992-2018 Rank Journal Title Total papers Publishing country Cite Score (2018) Cite Score Quartile (2018) 1 Journal of Research in Health Sciences 114 Iran 1.34 Q2 2 Iranian Journal of Public Health 77 Iran 0.93 Q3 3 Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences 67 Iran 0.47 Q3 4 Iran Occupational Health 55 Iran 0.32 Q4 5 Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 50 Iran 1.47 Q2 6 Desalination and Water Treatment 43 USA 1.36 Q2 7 Acta Medica Iranica 41 Iran 0.91 Q2 8 Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 37 India 0.82 Q3 9 Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 36 Iran 1.16 Q2 10 International Journal of Pediatrics 31 Iran 0.08 Q4 Highly-cited papers Table 7 shows some features of top ten highly-cited papers authored by HUMS's researchers. Entitled as "Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years", the most highly-cited paper was published in 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine, with M. Shamsizadeh as a coauthor from HUMS. It is interesting that all highly-cited papers were published in Q1 journals. Table 7. Top ten highly-cited papers authored/co-authored by HUMS during 1992-2018 Rank Paper title Author from HUMS Journal Title Impact Factor Cite Score Pub. Year Cit ed by 1 Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years M. Shamsizadeh New England Journal of Medicine 70.76 Q1 16.1 Q1 2017 794 2 Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980-2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 M. Shamsizadeh The Lancet 59.102 Q1 10.28 Q1 2017 787 3 Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or M. Shamsizadeh The Lancet 59.102 Q1 10.28 Q1 2017 547 203 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf clusters of risks, 1990-2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 4 Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 M. Shamsizadeh The Lancet Neurology 28.755 Q1 8.81 Q1 2017 276 5 Structure and molecular mechanism of a nucleobase-cation-symport-1 family transporter M. Saidijam Science 41.037 Q1 15.21 Q1 2008 259 6 The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics Z. Mohammadi International Endodontic Journal 3.331 Q1 3.57 Q1 2009 214 7 Global, regional, and national under5 mortality, adult mortality, agespecific mortality, and life expectancy, 1970-2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 M. Shamsizadeh The Lancet 59.102 Q1 10.28 Q1 2017 200 8 Properties and applications of calcium hydroxide in endodontics and dental traumatology Z. Mohammadi International Endodontic Journal 3.331 Q1 3.57 Q1 2011 198 9 Equilibrium two-parameter isotherms of acid dyes sorption by activated carbons: Study of residual errors Mahdi Hadi Chemical Engineering Journal 8.355 Q1 8.47 Q1 2010 162 10 Effect of Body Mass Index on Breast Cancer during Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Periods: A MetaAnalysis J. Poorolajal PLoS ONE 2.766 Q1 3.01 Q1 2012 141 Clustering papers 63,362 terms were used in the titles and abstracts of the papers published by HUMS's researchers. As a threshold, the terms with at least 50 frequencies were included in the clustering map. As figure 5 depicts, 4 clusters appeared. The first cluster (in red) includes the terms such as Iran, age, man, life, age group and death. This cluster can be named as "epidemiological studies". The second cluster (in green) consists of terms such as rat, cell, animal, and mechanism. This cluster can be entitled as "laboratory studies". The third cluster (in blue) was named "pharmacologic studies" with terms such as concentration, effect, efficiency, and removal. In the fourth cluster (in yellow), there are terms such as gene, strain, polymorphism, bacterium, and infection. The cluster can be labeled as "microbiologic studies". 204 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Figure 5. Term clustering of papers authored/co-authored by HUMS during 1992-2018 Discussion and Conclusion As influential institutions in society, universities have the protective role in scientific, technological, economic, social and cultural development by producing scientific knowledge in different fields. Therefore, they need to be evaluated from different perspectives. This study is one of the first studies regarding the total scientific production of a medical university in Iran as a developing country and aimed to study the publications of HUMS from a bibliometric aspect. It was found that the growth trend in publications was increasingly, especially in three recent years (2016-2018). This clearly indicates that the university has found its way in research production and considered the importance of externalizing research findings. This is in line with a study by Ahmed et al. (2019) where they found that the two-third publications of Al-Jouf University, Saudi Arabia were produced during 2013-2017. Siwach and Kumar (2015) and Dwivedi (2017) found such a trend in Maharshi Dayanand University and Banaras Hindu University. HUMS's received citations had an increasing trend with having at least one citation in about 77 percent of its published papers. This is a sign of the university's influence on scientific development. This finding accords with the study by Siwach and Kumar (2015) in case of Maharshi Dayanand University. However, the average citations per paper indicator was 7.90 in HUMS in comparison with those of Maharshi Dayanand University with 6 (Siwach & Kumar, 205 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf 2015) and Al-Jouf University with 4.53 (Ahmed et al., 2019). This difference may be due to the type of studied universities as medical vs. non-medical universities. As the self-citation rate of HUMS was about 23 percent, it is better that the researchers of the university consider citing other universities and research institution in order to reduce the self-citation rate. Considering the collaboration of 121 worldwide countries with HUMS, it can be said that the university has a reasonable international collaboration with other countries. However, the collaboration with Asian and Middle-eastern countries needs to be emphasized. In line with the findings by Dwivedi (2017) for Banaras Hindu University, Sweileh et al. (2014) for Najah National University, and Maharana and Sethi (2013) for Sambalpur University, we found that HUMS's researchers had the highest collaboration with the USA's authors. More than 50 percent of HUMS papers were authored by top 20 highly-productive authors. This result reminds us of the Pareto Principle or 80/20 law (Crawford, 2001). Researchers in HUMS published their papers in 160 journals, no one in Q1. In addition, 8 journals out of top 10 publishing journals were from Iran. This is in accordance with the findings of study by Ahmed et al. (2010) that showed that the most favorable journal for Al-Jouf University's authors was a journal in Q3, i.e. the International Medical Journal. Therefore, researchers in developing countries tend to publish in low-level journals and policy-maker should consider and facilitate their attitude to publishing in high-level Q1 journals. All highly-cited papers of HUMS were published in Q1 journals, such as New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, the Science and so on. As a result, researchers who want to be highlycited are recommended to publish in high-level and famous journals. Term clustering of HUMS papers showed that the researchers in the university considered important medical fields and subfields ranging from epidemiological to microbiological studies. However, some subfield needs to be emphasized, including among others lifestyle medicine, traditional medicine, medical informetrics and local cancer research. This study can be a pattern for studying and visualizing the bibliometric indicators of other universities and research institutions worldwide. In addition, policy-makers in HUMS can use the finding for better future policy-making for its more scientific development. Acknowledgments The study was funded by Vice-chancellor for Research and Technology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (No.9708224885). 206 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf References Ackermann, E. (2005). Bibliometrics of a controversial scientific literature: polywater research, 19621974. Scientometrics, 63 (2), 189-208. Ahmed, A., & Al-Reyaee, S. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of research publications of Al-Jouf University, Saudi Arabia during the Year 2006-2017. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2019 (2467), 1-9. Archambault, E., Cote, G. and Michaud, B. (2008). Potential for scientific collaboration between Canada and Nordic countries 1998-2003 Denmark –Finland – Iceland – Norway Sweden. Retrieved September 24, 2019, from http://www.sciencemetrix.com/pdf/SM_2005_004_ITC_Canada_Nordic_Countries_Collaboration.pdf. Atayero, A. A., Popoola, S. I., Egeonu, J., & Oludayo, O. (2018). Citation analytics: Data exploration and comparative analyses of CiteScores of Open Access and Subscription-Based publications indexed in Scopus (2014–2016). Data in brief, 19, 198-213. Bakri, A., & Willett, P. (2017). The malaysian journal of library and information science 2001-2006: A bibliometric study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 13 (1), 103-116. Batooli, Z., Ravandi, S. N., & Bidgoli, M. S. (2016). Evaluation of scientific outputs of Kashan university of medical sciences in scopus citation database based on Scopus, ResearchGate, and Mendeley scientometric measures. Electronic physician, 8 (2), 2048. Bueno-Aguilera, F., Jiménez-Contreras, E., Lucena-Martín, C., & Pulgar-Encinas, R. (2016). Dental research in Spain. A bibliometric analysis on subjects, authors and institutions (1993-2012). Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal, 21 (2), e142. Chan, K. C., Seow, G. S., & Tam, K. (2009). Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34 (6-7), 875-885. Chuang, K. Y., Chuang, Y. C., Ho, M., & Ho, Y. S. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of public health research in Africa: The overall trend and regional comparisons. South African Journal of Science, 107 (5-6), 54-59. Corrales-Reyes, I. E., Corrales, I. E., Reyes, J. J., & Fornaris, Y. (2016). Bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Oral Research: Period 2012-2015. Journal of Oral Research, 5 (5), 188-193. Corrales-Reyes, I. E., Fornaris-Cedeño, Y., Dorta-Contreras, A. J., Mejia, C. R., Pacheco-Mendoza, J., & Arencibia-Jorge, R. (2019). Cuban Scientific Production on Diabetes, 2000–2017: Peerreviewed Publications, Collaboration and Impact. MEDICC review, 21, 17-25. Crawford, W. (2001). Exceptional institutions: libraries and the Pareto principle. American Libraries, 32 (6), 72-74. Da Luz, M. P., Marques-Portella, C., Mendlowicz, M., Gleiser, S., Coutinho, E. S. F., & Figueira, I. (2008). Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian Psychiatric Post-graduation Programs. Scientometrics, 77(2), 361-368. 207 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Darmadji, A., Prasojo, L. D., Kusumaningrum, F. A., & Andriansyah, Y. (2018). Research productivity and international collaboration of top Indonesian universities. Current Science, 115(4), 653-658. De Oliveira, A.O., Oliveira, H.L.S., Gomes, C.F.S., & Ribeiro, P.C.C. (2019). Quantitative analysis of RFID' publications from 2006 to 2016. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 185-192. Dwivedi, S. (2017). Publications of Banaras Hindu University during 1989-2016: A three-dimensional Bibliometric Study. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 37 (6), 403-409. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB journal, 22 (2), 338342. Fiala, D., & Ho, Y. S. (2017). Twenty years of Czech science: A bibliometric analysis. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 20 (2). Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigo, J. M., & Popa, S. (2018). Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge Management: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22 (8), 1655-1687. Haq, I. (2017). Research productivity at King Saud bin Abdul Aziz University for health sciences, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A bibliometric appraisal. Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College, 21 (2), 182-186. Ho, T. M., Nguyen, H. V., Vuong, T. T., Dam, Q. M., Pham, H. H., & Vuong, Q. H. (2017). Exploring Vietnamese co-authorship patterns in social sciences with basic network measures of 2008-2017 Scopus data. F1000Research, 6. Article 1559. Huamaní, C., Romaní, F., González-Alcaide, G., Mejia, M. O., Ramos, J. M., Espinoza, M., & Cabezas, C. (2014). South American collaboration in scientific publications on leishmaniasis: bibliometric analysis in SCOPUS (2000-2011). Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, 56 (5), 381-390. Hulme, E. W. (1923). Statistical bibliography in relation to the growth of modern civilization. Cambridge University Press, London. HUMS (2019). Hamadan University of Medical Sciences. Retrieved September 24, 2019, from http://www.umsha.ac.ir Hussain, A., Fatima, N., & Kumar, D. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of the Electronic Library journal. Webology, 8 (1), Article 87. Retrieved September 24, 2019, from http://www.webology.org/2011/v8n1/a87.html Jacobsson, S. (1997). Sweden's Technological System for Electronics and Computer Technology. In Technological systems and industrial dynamics (pp. 61-92). Springer, Boston, MA. Jiang, B. J., Tan, X. D., Robinson, P., Liu, M., & Di, J. (2014). Bibliometrics analysis of the scientific publication of the provincial capital cities CDC in China. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research. 4 (1), 529-539. 208 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Kahn, M. (2011). A bibliometric analysis of South Africa's scientific outputs: Some trends and implications. South African Journal of Science, 107 (1-2), 1-6. Kamdem, J. P., Duarte, A. E., Lima, K. R. R., Rocha, J. B. T., Hassan, W., Barros, L. M., & Tsopmo, A. (2019). Research trends in food chemistry: A bibliometric review of its 40 years anniversary (1976-2016). Food chemistry. 294, 448-457. Kannan, P., & Thanuskodi, S. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of library philosophy and practice: A study based on Scopus Database. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2019 (2300), 1-13. Kazerani, M., Davoudian, A., Zayeri, F., & Soori, H. (2017). Assessing abstracts of Iranian systematic reviews and metaanalysis indexed in WOS and Scopus using PRISMA. Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 31, 18. Krauskopf, E. (2018). A bibiliometric analysis of the Journal of Infection and Public Health: 2008– 2016. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 11 (2), 224-229. Kulkarni, A.V., Aziz, B., Shams, I. and Busse, J.W. (2009), Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals, JAMA, 302(10), 1092-1096. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302 (10), 1092-1096. Laengle, S., Merigó, J. M., Miranda, J., Słowiński, R., Bomze, I., Borgonovo, E., & Teunter, R. (2017). Forty years of the European Journal of Operational Research: A bibliometric overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 262 (3), 803-816. Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154-1181. Layus, P., & Kah, P. (2015). Bibliometric study of welding scientific publications by big data analysis. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Applications, 3 (5), 94-102. Lian, Y., & Wang, L. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of the papers on urban education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14 (7), 2857-2866. Li, Y., Liu, C., Zhang, J., & Li, F. (2018). A bibliometric analysis and visualization of environmental damage research from 2000 to 2018. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 170, No. 3, p. 032079). IOP Publishing. Maharana, R. K., & Sethi, B. B. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of the research output of Sambalpur University's publication in ISI Web of Science during 2007-11. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2013 (926), 1-13. Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., & Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: a bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52 (1/2), 439-468. 209 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Merigó, J. M., Gil-Lafuente, A. M., & Yager, R. R. (2015). An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 420-433. Milojevic, S. (2009). Big science, nano science? mapping the evolution and socio-cognitive structure of nanoscience/nanotechnology using mixed methods. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Mokhtari, H., Roumiyani, A., & Saberi, M.K. (2019). Bibliometric analysis and visualization of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (JASSS) between 2000 and 2018. Webology, 16 (1). 166-183. Mohsen, M.A., Fu, H.Z. & Ho, Y.S. (2017). A Bibliometric Analysis of linguistics publications in the Web of Science. Journal of Scientometric Research, 6 (2), 109-18. Monge-Nájera, J., & Ho, Y. S. (2017). Bibliometrics of Nicaraguan publications in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Revista de Biología Tropical, 65 (2), 643-655. Monge-Nájera, J., & Ho, Y. S. (2018). Guatemala articles in the Science Citation Index Expanded: bibliometry of subjects, collaboration, institutions and authors. Revista de Biología Tropical, 66 (1), 312-320. Mousavi Chalak, A., Yaminfirooz, M., & Riahi, A. (2018). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of Islamic Republic of Iran's scientific productions indexed in Scopus in the field of nursing during 2000-2016. Qom University of Medical Sciences Journal, 12 (4), 61-71. Nafade, V., Nash, M., Huddart, S., Pande, T., Gebreselassie, N., Lienhardt, C., & Pai, M. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of tuberculosis research, 2007–2016. PloS one, 13 (6), e0199706. Noyons, E.C.M. (1999), Bibliometric mapping as a science policy and research management tool. Doctoral dissertation, Centrum voor Wetenschaps-en, Faculty of Science, Leiden University. Noyons, C. M. (2004). Science maps within a science policy context. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 237-255). Springer, Dordrecht. Osei Boamah, P., & Ho, Y. S. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of Ghana publications in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Revista de Biología Tropical, 66 (1), 106-121. Özkoze, H., & Gencer, C. T. (2017). Bibliometric analysis and mapping of management information systems field. Gazi University Journal of Science, 30 (4), 356-371. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25 (4), 348349. Rojas-Sola, J. I., & Jorda-Albinana, B. (2010). Bibliometric analysis of Venezoelan scientific publications un the ecology category of Web of Science database (1997-2008). Interciencia, 35 (8), 619-623. Romanelli, J. P., Fujimoto, J. T., Ferreira, M. D., & Milanez, D. H. (2018). Assessing ecological restoration as a research topic using bibliometric indicators. Ecological engineering, 120, 311-320. 210 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Rondanelli, M., Perna, S., Peroni, G. & Guido, D. (2016). A bibliometric study of scientific literature in Scopus on botanicals for treatment of androgenetic alopecia. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 15 (2), 120-130. Sabah, F., Hassan, S. U., Muazzam, A., Iqbal, S., Soroya, S. H., & Sarwar, R. (2019). Scientific collaboration networks in Pakistan and their impact on institutional research performance: A case study based on Scopus publications. Library Hi Tech, 37 (1), 19-29. Sachini, E., Malliou, N., Karampekios, N., & Karaiskos, D. (2015). Greek scientific publications 19982012: A Bibliometric Analysis of Greek Publications in International Scientific Journals– Scopus. Athens: National Documentation Center. Saravanan, C.G. (2012). Bibliometric analysis of the scientific publications of the Western Ghats. In: Proceedings of the UGCSAP National Seminar on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 9-10 March, 2012 held at Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram (pp. 215-220). Sa'ed, H. Z., Al-Jabi, S. W., Sweileh, W. M., & Awang, R. (2014). A Scopus-based examination of tobacco use publications in Middle Eastern Arab countries during the period 2003–2012. Harm Reduction Journal, 11 (1), 14. Şenel, E., & Demir, E. (2018). Bibliometric and scientometric analysis of the articles published in the journal of religion and health between 1975 and 2016. Journal of Religion and Health, 57(4), 1473-1482. Sengupta, I. N. (1992). Bibliometrics, informetrics, scientometrics and librametrics: An overview. Libri, 42 (2), 75-98. Siwach, A. K., & Kumar, S. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of research publications of Maharshi Dayanand University (Rohtak) during 2000-2013. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 35 (1). Sweileh, W. M., Zyoud, S. E. H., Al-Khalil, S., Al-Jabi, S. W., & Sawalha, A. F. (2014). Assessing the scientific research productivity of the Palestinian higher education institutions: A case study at AnNajah National University, Palestine. SAGE Open, 4 (3). Synnestvedt and Chen, C. (2005). Design and evaluation of the tightly coupled perceptual-cognitive tasks in knowledge domain visualization. In Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI International 2005). New York: ACM., M.B. Taga, V., Oliveira Inomata, D., Rodrigues Vaz, C., Uriona Maldonado, M., & Varvakis, G. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production of the information architecture related to libraries. Biblios, (67), 1-15. Tang, M., Liao, H., & Su, S. F. (2018). A bibliometric overview and visualization of the International Journal of Fuzzy Systems between 2007 and 2017. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20 (5), 1403-1422. Tang, M., Liao, H., Wan, Z., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Rosen, M. (2018). Ten years of sustainability (2009 to 2018): A bibliometric overview. Sustainability, 10 (5), 1655. 211 http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Tsafe, A. G., Chiya, U., & Aminu, B. A. (2016). Scholarly publications of librarians in universities in Nigeria: 2000-2012 A bibliometric analysis. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2016 (1394),1-24. Tur-Porcar, A., Mas-Tur, A., Merigó, J. M., Roig-Tierno, N., & Watt, J. (2018). A bibliometric history of the journal of psychology between 1936 and 2015. The Journal of psychology, 152 (4), 199-225. Uddin, A., Singh, V. K., Pinto, D., & Olmos, I. (2015). Scientometric mapping of computer science research in Mexico. Scientometrics, 105 (1), 97-114. Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84 (2), 523-538. Van Eck, N., Waltman, L., Noyons, E. & Buter, R. (2010). Automatic term identification for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics, 82 (3), 581-596. Yessirkepov, M., Nurmashev, B., & Anartayeva, M. (2015). A Scopus-based analysis of publication activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive trends, concerns, and possible solutions. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30 (12), 1915-1919. Zarei, M., Bagheri-Saweh, M. I., Rasolabadi, M., Vakili, R., Seidi, J., Kalhor, M. M., & Gharib, A. (2017). Breast cancer research in Iran: A scientometric analysis of publications output from 1991 to 2015 in Scopus. Electronic physician, 9 (2), 3816-3822. Zhai, X., Zhao, J., Wang, Y., Wei, X., Li, G., Yang, Y., & Li, M. (2018). Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Research on lncRNA: A Swiftly Expanding Trend. BioMed Research International, 2018. Article ID 7625078. Zhang, C. C., Zheng, X., Su, C. H., Huang, H., Yan, F. R., Pan, X. J., & Jin, Z. Z. (2017). A bibliometric study of the Journal of School Health: 1965–2014. Chinese Nursing Research, 4 (2), 75-83. Zyoud, S. E. H., Al-Jabi, S. W., Sweileh, W. M., & Awang, R. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of toxicology research productivity in Middle Eastern Arab countries during a 10-year period (20032012). Health Research Policy and Systems, 12 (4), 4. Zyoud, S.H., Al-Jabi, S.W., Sweileh, W.M. & Waring, W.S. (2015). Scientific research related to calcium channel blockers poisoning: Bibliometric analysis in Scopus, 1968–2012. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 34 (11), 1162-1170. Bibliographic information of this paper for citing: Mokhtari, Heidar; Mirezati, Seyedeh Zahra; Saberi, Mohammad Karim; Fazli, Farzaneh, & Kharabati-Neshin, Mohammad (2019). "A bibliometric analysis and visualization of the scientific publications of universities: A study of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences during 1992-2018", Webology, 16(2), Article 198. Available at: http://www.webology.org/2019/v16n2/a198.pdf Copyright © 2019, Heidar Mokhtari, Seyedeh Zahra Mirezati, Mohammad Karim Saberi, Farzaneh Fazli and Mohammad Kharabati-Neshin. View publication stats