Document Type : Articles


1 Tehran University of Medical Sciences

2 2. Halal Research Center of IRI, FDA, Tehran, Iran 3. PhD in Health Information Management, Department of Health Information Management, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD in Library and Information Science Medicine, Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Scientific collaboration indicates active teamwork between researchers beyond the simple exchange of material or information. This study is a systematic review of the papers published by Iranian researchers, aiming to provide comprehensive indicators, methodologies, and software used for evaluating scientific collaboration. According to guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook, the national and international databases were used for searching by English and Persian keywords without any time limitations. The retrieved articles were managed using EndNote software. By applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 201 articles remained for this review. These articles were selected from 93 domestic and foreign journals between 2000 and 2019. The studies used 16 software to extract and analyze scientific collaboration indicators. Systematic review shows that bibliometric and network analysis methods were the main approaches used in scientific collaboration studies among papers published by Iranian researchers (93.5%). More than 25 indicators were extracted from these studies, and they were categorized into patterns of collaboration and co-authorship network analysis. Researchers have revealed an increasing interest in the factors affecting scientific collaboration in recent years. The present study provides comprehensive information on the articles published by Iranian researchers on scientific collaboration. The methodologies and software were identified that are most often used to evaluate scientific collaboration and adapted to direct future research. Still, a variety of indicators situates them in heterogeneous methods of research. This analytical perspective does not locate the evaluation of scientific collaboration at a single spot. Future scientific collaboration studies will continue to evolve to offer more powerful indicators for assessing the knowledge flow status quo.


  1. Anthony, v. R. (2019). Measuring Science: Basic Principles and Application of Advanced Bibliometrics. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 237-280). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  2. Bales, M. E., Wright, D. N., Oxley, P. R., & Wheeler, T. R. (2020). Bibliometric Visualization and Analysis Software: State of the Art, Workflows, and Best Practices. Retrieved from
  3. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123-1144. Retrieved from
  4. Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. Retrieved from
  5. Galyani-Moghaddam, G. (2019). Visualization of collaboration in psychology: A case study of Iran. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66(1), 7-15. Retrieved from
  6. Galyani-Moghaddam, G., Momeni, E., & Sttarzadeh, A. (2015). Typology and Research Methodology of Studies in Scientific Collaboration done in Iran. Rahyaft, 24(57), 55-61 [In Persian]. doi:10.22034/Rahyaft.2015.24.57.515256
  7. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(2), 323-335.
  8. Jalal, S. K. (2019). Co-authorship and co-occurrences analysis using Bibliometrix R-package: a casestudy of India and Bangladesh. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66(2), 57-64. Retrieved from
  9. Jamali, H. R., & Russell, B. (2014). Do online communities support research collaboration? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(6), 603-622. Retrieved from
  10. Kang, Q., & Song, Z. (2015). The current state of systematic reviews in library and information studies. Library & Information Science Research, 37(4), 296-310. Retrieved from
  11. Keshtkar, A., Djalalinia, S., Khashayar, P., Peykari, N., Mohammdi, Z., & Larijani, B. (2013). Iranian Health Research Networks and Vision of Iran by 2025: A Case of Virtual Health Network in EMRI. Iran J Public Health, 42(Supple1), 78-83. Retrieved from
  12. Khosravi, M., & Pournaghi, R. (2019). Dimensions of Research Impact: A Sys-tematic Review. Journal of Scientometrics, 5(9), 203-224. doi:10.22070/rsci.2018.695
  13. Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2012). Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: A comparative study of collaborative measures. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 27-33. doi:
  14. Maden, M., & Kotas, E. (2016). Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(2). doi:10.18438/B8F630
  15. Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El profesional de la informacion (EPI), 29(1). Retrieved from
  16. Ramezani-Pakpour-Langeroudi, F., Okhovati, M., & Talebian, A. (2018). Do highly cited clinicians get more citations when being present at social networking sites? J Educ Health Promot, 8(1), 1-5. doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_69_17