Abotalebi, P. & Biglu, M. H. (2017). Developing co-authorship networks in the field of library and information science during 2006-2016.
Knowledge Retrieval and Semantic Systems, 3(9), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.22054/jks.2017.18741.1120 [in Persian]
Alipour, O., Siheili, F. Ziaei, S. & Khasseh, A.A. (2020). Structure of knowledge organization based on co-authorship network analysis.
Library and Information Science, 23 (4), 92, 76-105.
https://doi.org/10.30481/lis.2020.236133.1729 [in Persian]
Alvim, L. & Calixto, J. A. (2013). The social function of the public library in the world of social networks and of the crisis of the Welfare State. 5th International Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries 4-7 June 2013, “La Sapienza” University, Rome Italy.
Andrea, B. A., Naranjo-Toro, M, Guerra-Reyes, F., Carrascal, R. & Benavides-Piedra, A. (2022). Visibility of scientific production and digital identity of researchers through digital technologies.
Education Sciences 12(12), 926.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120926
Azonobi, I. N. (2021). Acquisition, visibility, accessibility and use of periodical among library and information science postgraduate studies in Federal University Libraries in Nigeria. Doctoral dissertation, Delta State University, Abraka.
Barik, N. & Jena, P. (2018). Authorship Distribution and Collaboration in LISOpen Access Journals: A Scopus based analysisduring 2001 to 2015. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 2033.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2033
Brantner, C. & Huber, B. (2013). How visible is communication studies? Press coverage of the discipline in three German-language quality newspapers. SCM:
Studies in Communication /
Media, 2(2), 247-264. Retrieved from
http://www.scm.nomos.de/aktuelles-heft-und-archiv/2013/heft-2/
Brighenti, A. M. (2010). Visibility in social theory and social research. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from
http://www.capacitedaffect.net/2013/teoriasociale2014/Brighenti_2010_Urban_Visibilities.pdf
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In: Bucchi, Massimiano and Brian Trench (Eds) Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-77). London: Routledge.
Conway, P. (2008). Professional standards of service. London, England: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedure, Canons and Evaluative Criteria,
Qualitative Sociology. 13(1), 3-21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Cronin B. & Meho, L.I. (2008). The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 551-564.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20764
D’Este, P. & Robinson-García, N. (2023). Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields.
Research Policy, 52(2), 104609.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104609
Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social science. London: Routledge.
Dumas-Mallet, E., Garenne, A., Boraud, T. & Gonon, F. (2020). Does newspapers coverage influence the citations count of scientific publications? An analysis of biomedical studies.
Scientometrics, 123(1), 413-427.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03380-1
Fahy, D. (2017). Historical moments in public understanding of science: 1977, the visible scientists identifies a new scientist for the mass media age.
Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 1019–1024.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517732909
Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Ibérica, 13, 7-38.
Flick, O. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. (4th ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
Flyverbom, M., Leonardi, P.M., Stohl, C. & Stohl, M. (2016). The management of visibilities in the digital age introduction to special section. International Journal of Communication, 10, 98-109. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Reza/Downloads/4841-18382-1-PB-1.pdf
Goodell, R. (1977). The Visible Scientists.
The Sciences, 17(1), 6–9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1977.tb01494.x
Hicks, D. (2016). Advocating for librarianship: The discourses of advocacy and service in the professional identities of librarians.
Library Trends, 64(3), 615-640.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2016.0007
Hjørland, B. (2016). Informetrics needs a foundation in the theory of science. In C. Sugimoto (Ed.),
Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication (pp. 20-46). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Saur.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110308464-005
Hjørland, B. (2017). Domain analysis. Knowledge organization, 44(6), 436-464.
Johnson, S. A. H. & Jones, T. R. (2023). Role of social media in research publicity and visibility. In
Effective Use of Social Media in Public Health (pp. 217-230). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95630-7.00014-7
Jokić, M. (2019). Productivity, visibility, authorship, and collaboration in library and information science journals: Central and Eastern European authors.
Scientometrics, 122(2), 1189-1219.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03308-4
Jonker, H., Vanlee, F. & Ysebaert, W. (2022). Societal impact of university research in the written press: Media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium. Scientometrics, 127(12),7289–7306.
Kappel, K. & Holmen, S. J. (2019). Why science communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of science communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence.
Frontiers in Communication,
4, 55.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055
Kiousis, S. (2004). Explicating media salience: A factor analysis of New York times issue coverage during the 2000 U.S. presidential election.
Journal of Communication, 54(1), 71-87.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02614.x
Kuhn, T. (2014). Structures of scientific revolutions (S. Zibakalam, Trans.). Tehran: SAMT Publication (Original Work Published 1962/1970). [In Persian]
Lewenstein, B. V. (2003). Models of public communication of science and technology. version 16, 1-11. Departments of Communication and of Science & Technology Studies, Cornell University. Retrieved from
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3f3ec4d4-53ea-4eeb-b3c8-8c4e31da0ea9/content
Logan, R. A. (2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history.
Science Communication, 23(2), 135-163.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002004
Manheim, J. B. (2012). A model of agenda dynamics. In Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 499-516). Routledge.
Mateus, S. (2017). Visibility as a key concept in communication and media studies,
Estudos em Comunicação (
Communication Studies) 25(2), 109-124.
https://doi.org/10.20287/ec.n25.v2.a08
McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
Metag, J. (2021). Tension between visibility and invisibility: Science communication in new information environments.
Studies in Communication Sciences, 21(1), 129–144.
https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2021.01.009
Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance (2020). List of Licensed Newspapers. Retrieved from
https://e-rasaneh.ir/Report_Temp_Show.aspx?RID=1 [in Persian]
Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. (2017). The
Latest Newspaper Ranking Results were Announced. Retrieved from
https://www.farhang.gov.ir/fa/news/331821/ [in Persian]
Myburgh, S. (2003). Education directions for new information professionals,
Australian Library Journal, 52(3), 213–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2003.10721549
Norris, P. (2001).
Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164887
O’Connor, C. & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
Ojagh, Z. (2019). The changing role of science journalism in Iran.
Culture. Communication Studies, 20(45), 103-126.
https://doi.org/10.22083/jccs.2019.141167.2510 [in Persian]
Olesk, A. (2021). The types of visible scientists.
Journal of Science Communication,
20(02), A06.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20020206
Peters, H. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators.
PNAS, 110 (supplement_3), 14102-14109.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212745110
Rödder, S. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. In S. Rödder,M. Franzen and P. Weingart (Eds.)
The sciences’ media connection-Public communication and its repercussions. Vol. 28. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer (pp. 155–177).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_8
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P. & Fieldhouse, M. (2008). The Google Generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future.
Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290-310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530810887953
Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 121-132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009
Shaw, L. (2010). Representations of librarianship in the UK Press.
Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 62(6), 554-569.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531011089676
Singh, K., Uttam, D. (2012). Role of libraries and librarians in our social changes.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Science, 1(2), 153-160. Retrieved from
https://garph.co.uk/IJARMSS/Aug2012/10.pdf
Tang, R. (2004). Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science.
Proceedings of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 41(1), 54-63.
https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450410107
Trench, B. (2008). Internet: Turning science communication inside-out? In Bucchi, Massimiano and Brian Trench (Eds.) Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London: Routledge, (PP. 199-212).
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study.
Nursing & Health Sciences,15(3), 398-405.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
Vears, D. & Gillam, L. (2022). Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers.
Focus on Health Professional Education, 23(1), 111-127.
https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.544
Walters, W. H. & Wilder, E.I. (2016). Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007-2012.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1487-1506.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23448
Weatherburn J. & Harvey, R. (2016) Finding and forming the bold and the fearless: The future of LIS education in Australia.
The Australian Library Journal, 65(4), 251-261.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2016.1237946
Weingart, P. & Joubert, M. (2019). The conflation of motives of science communication-causes, consequences, remedies.
Journal of Science Communication, 18(03), Y01.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18030401
Williams, M. & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research.
International Management Review, 15(1), 45-55. Retrieved from
https://www.americanscholarspress.us/journals/IMR/pdf/IMR-1-2019/IMR-v15n1art4.pdf
Wilson, T. D. (2002). Curriculum and catastrophe: Change in professional education.
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43(4), 296–304.
https://doi.org/10.2307/40323955
