عبدالرضا نوروزی چاکلی

Today, researchers encounter challenges in scientific collaboration and the alignment of results with their peers. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of identification and the extent of researchers' genuine participation in the convergence of multi-authored articles written by aerospace researchers, utilizing the three-dimensional Collaborative Author Writing Hierarchy (CAWH). Author associativity is a concept closely linked to scientific collaboration and multi-authored publications. The complexity of knowledge and the increasing demand for specialization and interdisciplinary skills have shaped scientific participation. Aerospace researchers and specialists are pivotal in conducting scientific and industrial research within the aerospace sector, focusing on technology development and providing support and guidance to fellow researchers. The aerospace industry is multi-faceted, strategic, and dynamic, possessing significant potential for wealth generation, economic development, enhancing national competitiveness on the global stage, job creation, and export opportunities. In various fields of study, numerous indicators have been established for observing, monitoring, and quantitatively and qualitatively evaluating researchers' publications, leading to the introduction of diverse metrics accordingly.

The research is applied in nature and employs an analytical approach. To assess the improvement in accurately identifying the author's true contributions in published articles, a composite measure that examines multiple dimensions has been utilized. The research outputs of aerospace researchers were analyzed, drawing on data categorized under "Engineering, Aerospace" in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). English-language articles published from 1945 to 2021 were extracted for this study. Data extraction was conducted on February 4, 2022, a Friday. The current research community encompasses all aerospace researchers from 1945 to 2021, comprising 153,994 records indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). The total number of authors is 161,156, of whom 154,450 researchers with identifiable names (without sampling) were examined. The total number of citations is 2,617,712. Data extracted from the scientific website during the research period were analyzed. In this research, two tools, namely the "MiMFa Scraper, were employed to gather detailed information about each author. Additionally, another tool was utilized to match the gauge information with PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor). This tool is considered part of the DataLab software suite. Ravar PreMap software was also used to standardize the data. To normalize the data, the codes developed in the DataLab software were implemented. Excel 2016 was also utilized to extract data from various websites using PHP. The CAWH measure is defined as the average number of weighted citations based on co-author credit for a researcher.

The results of the H-weighted co-authorship index indicate "Florian Menter" (from ANSYS Germany GmbH), "Chae M. Rhie" (from Raytheon Technologies USA), "Philippe R. Spalart" (from Boeing), "Edward F. Crawley" (from Massachusetts (from the Institute of Technology (MIT)), "Irving Reed" (from university (from Southern California) are in rank fifth ranks of among based on the CAWH index. This measure was used to calculate the utilizing assessment of each author in writing a multi-author article.

The emphasis on recognizing researchers' contributions in article writing will be beneficial and effective for both researchers and the scientific community. Acknowledging researchers' involvement in writing allows them to showcase their contributions and achievements fairly and transparently. This approach enables researchers to properly receive their scientific credit and build their reputation, thereby gaining a competitive advantage within scientific communities. Within research teams, the implementation of this measure will enhance collaboration, facilitate the division of labor, and more equitably determine the rights and benefits of each team member. This approach fosters active collaboration and enhances the productivity of research teams. It enables research organizations and universities to conduct more accurate scientific evaluations of individuals and allocate resources based on equitable distribution and participation. Additionally, this method can improve transparency and build trust within research organizations. Consequently, it can help cultivate a culture of participation and cooperation within scientific communities. This approach can foster healthy, justice-oriented competition in science and enhance the quality of research. The evaluation offers readers and the scientific community detailed information about the authors and their collaborators involved in the research. This transparency enables readers to better assess the contributions and expertise of the article’s authors, thereby increasing their trust in the results and citations presented. Overall, acknowledging the participation of researchers in writing articles supports the scientific process and advances the field of science. This approach offers guidance for justice, transparency, cooperation, and the enhancement of research quality within scientific communities. It fosters an environment conducive to scientific development and progress, which can be assessed and refined using the index introduced in this study.

The production of science in each country reflects its development, and the sustainable progress of each nation is contingent upon its specific capabilities. The advancement of human, financial, economic, social, cultural, and political resources is a cornerstone of sustainable development in any country. Higher education plays a crucial role in cultivating specialized human resources required by society, equipping them with the necessary skills for their respective roles. Evaluation is a key factor that can shift education from a static state to a dynamic trajectory. Higher education and the contributions of professors are pivotal in the progress of any country. The evaluation of professors in the field of painting holds particular significance due to the valuable and substantial outputs they generate, many of which cannot be adequately identified and assessed using the standard criteria for faculty promotion. This study aims to explore the evaluation criteria and research productivity of faculty members specializing in painting at the Public and Islamic Azad universities in Tehran, as well as their perspectives on evaluation criteria. 

The current research is of an applied nature, specifically a descriptive survey for data collection. The scientometric approach was utilized in this research. The statistical population consisted of 30 individuals out of 61 painting professors from Public and Islamic Azad universities in Tehran between 2018 and 2021. The selection criteria included having at least an assistant professor degree, three years of teaching experience, and the willingness of participants to take part in the research. Among these 30 individuals, 23 participated, with 4 engaging in specialized interviews and 19 responding to a questionnaire. The research instrument was a researcher-developed questionnaire comprising 56 questions. 26 questions were directly derived from the regulations for faculty members' promotion in universities and higher education institutions under the Ministry of Science's supervision (Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, 2016) (explicit outputs), while 30 questions were related to significant outputs in the field of painting, either implicitly mentioned in the regulations or identified through qualitative interviews with painting experts (semi-obvious outputs). The questionnaire's content validity was confirmed by four faculty members, and its reliability, assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient, was 0.765. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software.

The findings revealed that among the various types of research outputs, internal scientific research articles, promotional scientific articles, and conference articles each received the highest score of 91.3 percent. Conversely, works related to book criticism had a frequency of 17.4 percent. Foreign articles indexed in the Web of Science, participation in international research projects, and guiding bachelor's theses were the least common types of research works among professors, each scoring 21.7 percent. The results indicated that while many professors included publications in their resumes, most lacked valid foreign articles indexed in WOS and Scopus. For those who did have such articles, the average number was only about two, which is notably low for professors of this scientific caliber. Among the semi-obvious outputs, showcasing works in individual internal exhibitions, displaying works in group internal exhibitions, creating artwork, and mastering a foreign language all have a 100 percent frequency. The history of membership in ethics committees in research has a 13 percent frequency. Exhibiting works in individual foreign exhibitions has a 13 percent frequency while being the editor or manager of magazines in the field of visual arts has a 14.7 percent frequency. These two have the lowest frequency among the semi-obvious outputs. According to painting professors, guides for specialized doctorate theses, showcasing works in individual foreign exhibitions, participating in international research projects, and teaching workshops are considered the most important for the promotion of professors in this field. On the other hand, book reviews, internal conference papers, thesis counseling for Bachelor's degrees, history of membership in ethics committees in research, book editing and compilation, and guidance of bachelor's theses are considered the least important. According to professors, there was no significant difference between obvious and semi-obvious outputs. Ignoring artworks and exhibitions as the outputs of this field, many professors, not familiar with the latest research methods in art, avoid international trips and conferences due to financial problems and the lack of motivation among professors and officials to upgrade their scientific rank. The arrangement was the most important obstacle to the fair promotion of painting professors.

In general, based on the results obtained from the present research, it can be concluded that the current regulations for the promotion of professors are inadequate in fairly evaluating art professors. Structural reforms and practical measures are needed to enhance the evaluation of professors in this field.According to the research findings, it is recommended to incorporate items endorsed by selected professors into the promotion regulations to address the lack of availability or inadequate presentation of certain outputs. Additionally, in response to concerns raised by professors regarding methodological issues in painting research, it is advised to organize skill enhancement workshops for faculty members in this field. Lastly, it is proposed that the individuals responsible for revising the promotion regulations include dedicated sections for specific disciplines like painting to ensure equitable competition and recognition within other research-oriented disciplines.

More than a decade ago in 2012, when comparing descriptive and Nomothetic-oriented study approaches in the book "Introduction to Scientometrics (Foundations, Concepts, Relations & Origins)", I introduced descriptive informatics as the study and analysis of individual pieces of information, such as individual documents, topics, authors, readers, editors, journals, institutions, scientific fields, regions, countries, languages, and more. On the other hand, the "Nomothetic informetrics" approach was described as studies that aim to identify and introduce the existing rules and principles governing the flow of information. Based on this perspective, the Descriptive research approach in scientometrics, which can also be introduced as an Idiographic approach, studies or discovers facts scientific processes, and specific variables without the ability to generalize and separate from general laws. Studying and monitoring the process of changes in variables such as researchers, universities, journals, countries, and the like can be considered a type of Descriptive & Idiographic research in scientometrics, which descriptively examines the dimensions and trends of change and evolution in certain variables. According to this viewpoint, the Descriptive & Idiographic research approach focuses on a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of changes in one or more variables and a specific case or a group of cases as an entity. The Descriptive & Idiographic research approach in scientometrics is often directly related to quantitative studies. This approach emphasizes the distinctiveness and uniqueness of the studied variables and phenomena. Instead of attempting to draw general conclusions that can be applied to a larger society, it aims to gain a profound understanding of the contexts in which the conditions and changes of variables and phenomena are studied. Questions such as "Which universities have managed to improve their position in international rankings?", "How has the position of one or more specific universities been in comparison with each other in various international rankings?", and "In which universities has the computer engineering department had a greater scientific impact?" are among the research questions proposed with Descriptive & Idiographic research approaches and can be addressed using the same approach. In contrast, the Nomothetic approach is used in scientometrics to identify and extract rules and principles governing science and technology by generalizing to logical analogies or using mathematical models. The Nomothetic research approach, with an evaluative view, aims to establish specific frameworks during scientific interactions. This approach is employed in scientometrics to derive laws that explain the types or categories of phenomena present in the currents of science and technology. In the Nomothetic research approach, instead of focusing on the characteristics of specific variables, the scientometric researcher attempts to identify independent factors that cause changes in one or more variables or certain phenomena, thereby affecting a broader spectrum of the scientific community. The Nomothetic research approach, in a problem-oriented manner, seeks to identify principles, laws, and general theories, and discover consistent patterns and relationships across various cases or situations that can guide scientific behavior in a larger society or for a set of variables and cases. Therefore, the Nomothetic approach is reminiscent of the necessity for problem-oriented research, which has always been emphasized in scientific and academic circles. To conduct studies using the Nomothetic approach, relying solely on quantitative methods is insufficient; qualitative methods and approaches should also be incorporated. Hence, in the multiple influential studies of scientometrics, it is expected that the studies progress from the quantitative level to the qualitative and evaluative level. This qualitative approach emerges as a continuation of quantitative studies, enabling deeper analyses and the discovery of principles, laws, general theories, patterns, and relationships. Questions such as "What factors have contributed to improving the ranking of universities in international rankings?", "How can universities enhance their position in international ranking systems through policies and strategies? and "What is the correlation between research grant policies and laws and the ranking of universities in international ranking systems?”, are central problems that necessitate a Nomothetic research approach for resolution. The focus of scientometrics on the Descriptive & Idiographic approach weakens the power of generalization, moves scientometrics away from its ultimate goal of playing a role as a support field for science and technology policy, damages the position of scientometrics, and makes it impossible to provide stable findings. To be more effective and deepen its findings, scientometrics must develop the level of analysis of its studies from the Descriptive & Idiographic approach to the Nomothetic research & Problem-oriented approach. By bridging between these two approaches, more stable, analytical results can be provided, offering deeper and more effective information to the science and technology policy-making community. Undoubtedly, more reflection and answering questions like this can lead the way in this direction: How is it possible to implement studies that simultaneously use Descriptive & Idiographic and Nomothetic research & Problem-oriented approaches? How can students' dissertations and theses, and researchers' scientometrics research projects be led to using these two approaches simultaneously? What is the best solution to create a bridge between these two approaches in scientometric studies?

Elites are a national asset and have the power to influence the direction of society. The first and most important step in the elitism process is identifying the elite. If the identification stage is carried out correctly and comprehensively with regard to the skills and abilities of the elites, it will ensure the success of their spiritual education and investment process. Identifying and validating indicators of elitism is one of the most challenging issues that countries face, and it is considered one of the most important concerns in every country. Identifying the indicators of excellence in the field of humanities is no exception to this rule, as humanities provide the roadmap for other scientific fields. It is essential to refine this roadmap by recognizing the elites in this field. Therefore, the current research aims to identify and explain elite indicators and provide a framework for identifying scientific elites in the field of humanities.

This research employs a scientometric approach to identify and categorize elite indicators and validate them based on expert opinion. It aims to identify the most reliable indicators and establish a framework for recognizing scientific elites based on the obtained results. The purpose of the current research is both developmental and applied, utilizing a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. For certain aspects of this research, the library method was utilized, while the survey method was employed for other parts. The research community consisted of humanities experts who were selected using a non-random purposeful sampling method. The research then continued to expand through a snowball method, ultimately involving 20 people. Based on the analysis of the texts, 157 indicators were identified. After equalization, this number was reduced to 77 indicators, which were then provided to humanities experts. In the continuation of the research, the first step involved analyzing the data. After surveying the experts, the indicators were validated and their average was obtained using SPSS v25 and Excel v2019 software. In the second phase of the research, the indicators that scored higher than the optimal average level of 3, as determined by the experts, were identified as desirable. These indicators were then re-entered into the SPSS software and weighted to establish the research framework.

The results revealed that out of the 26 indicators presented in the elite section, 24 indicators scored above the average. The candidate's achievement value index, with an average of 4.41, had the highest average in this section. Out of the 51 indicators mentioned in the adult section, all the indicators scored above the average. According to the experts, all the indicators were deemed important. In this section, the indicator for presenting a valid scientific theory for the first time in the world (which has gained general acceptance and validity) or the initiation of a new scientific research right in the world (which has achieved international scientific success) had the highest average of 4.65. The results of the second phase of the research regarding the weighting of the indicators revealed that in the youth section, scientific ability (weight: 87.828) was the most significant dimension, followed by economic ability, social ability, and communication ability (weight: 12.171). In the adult indicators identification section, the weighting results showed that the dimension of scientific ability (weight: 61.880) and the dimension of executive ability (weight: 16.849) were more important.

The key to identifying and validating indicators of the elite is the presence of significant and effective scientific measures that can accurately assess individuals' efforts and values. This is essential for promptly identifying the elite and preventing the misuse of national funds. The optimal approach in this field is to analyze indicators and develop models for identifying elites. By extracting and validating the identification indicators of elites and assigning weight to each factor, the proposed operational framework categorizes them into scientific, economic, executive, social, and communication ability factors. The operational framework can effectively improve the decision-making of policymakers and elite evaluators, as well as the quality of identifying scientific elites in the humanities.

The aerospace industry and technology are always considered one of the most important and valuable industries due to their special and unique features and applications. The field of aerospace research is a priority in the grand strategies of science and technology development, and it is essential to focus on it. Aerospace researchers and experts play critical roles in advancing aerospace science and industry. They are responsible for conducting scientific and industrial activities as well as research. Evaluating the research performance and quality of aerospace researchers at the international level is crucial. The current research aims to study scientometrics and analyze the centrality metrics of the co-authorship network of aerospace researchers at the international level. This will be done using data available on the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC).

The research conducted is of an applied nature, employing an analytical approach. In this article, the technique of network analysis has been employed to visualize the network of co-authorship at both the micro and macro levels. This includes analyzing the social network of co-authorship among researchers and their organizations, as well as examining centrality indicators and conducting network analysis of researchers' research topics. The current research community includes all aerospace researchers, with 153,994 records indexed on the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) from 1945 to 2021. There are 161,156 aerospace researchers, of which 6,706 were anonymous and were excluded from the research population. Therefore, 154,450 researchers were included in the study. Data Lab was used to accurately extract data for aerospace researchers. Ravar PreMap was also used to standardize data and prepare a square matrix for researchers. The symmetric correlation matrix of researchers (AU) was obtained using Bibexcel and Netdraw. Then, the required centralities were calculated. Co-authorship maps were also created using NetDraw. Co-authorship network analysis technique was used for data analysis. A 157×157 matrix was considered to identify keywords that appeared with a frequency of 70 or more. This matrix was used to create a network of commonly researched topics among researchers. VOSviewer version 1.6.18 was used to visualize co-authorship networks.

The density of the co-authorship network among aerospace researchers is low, and the network exhibits low cohesion. In the current research, five clusters of collaboration were identified, with the center consisting of prominent researchers in the field of aerospace. "David A. Fulghum" of the Maritime Center in America published 863 articles in the field of aerospace between 1983 and 2003. "Florian Menter" from Ensys Germany has the highest number of citations (excluding self-citations) for published articles in the aerospace field. Out of 87,778 keywords identified in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSC C) in aerospace, 9712 were associated with Florian Menter. Additionally, a map was prepared using 157 keywords that had a frequency of 70 or more. The co-word clusters of the aerospace network consist of seven topic clusters, 157 nodes, 2679 edges, and have a density of 0.11. The first cluster was a hot topic discussed in the aerospace industry, and the most frequently mentioned topic, "Aircraft," is associated with cluster 3. The most prominent topics are aerodynamics, flight control, and vibrations. The most significant scientific collaboration of aerospace researchers is between Giovanni Mengali and Alessandro A. Quarta from the University of Pisa, Italy. The most scientific advancements in aerospace research have been published in the fields of aerodynamics, flight mechanics, control, and vibrations. After the United States, China had the most scholarly communications with other countries.

Developing science policy and advancing strategic plans and programs for aerospace research require comprehensive and accurate information about researchers' potential scientific and technical abilities. The involvement of prominent aerospace researchers in communication and scientific collaborations has resulted in the establishment of significant international partnerships in the aerospace industry. In order to effectively participate in robust and cohesive scientific collaboration networks, it is necessary to enhance communication among researchers, research centers, and countries, and leverage their synergistic capabilities. The present research results are utilized in the science, technology, and innovation policies of the aerospace industry. It is also used in the planning and direction of applied research, as well as in the application of research conducted by aerospace scientific associations, universities, research institutes, and aerospace industry organizations. Additionally, the results obtained from this research can be used to expand international cooperation among aerospace researchers. Another application of the results presented in this article is the optimal utilization of experts and meticulous planning for the establishment and growth of specialized clusters of aerospace researchers. Prominent aerospace researchers have facilitated the establishment of scientific collaborations and significant partnerships at the international level. Nevertheless, in order to establish stronger and more cohesive scientific collaboration networks, it is essential to prioritize the exploration of potential connections among researchers, research centers, universities, and countries, as well as their synergistic capabilities.

The purpose of this article is to analyze articles about library efficiency in the field of library and information science.

Methedology: 

The concept of library input-output efficiency is extracted from the general framework of library performance. 

The findings of the study of reflective indicators of library services showed that whenever the sample size of the library increases or the input output index changes, the efficiency score of the library changes immediately

Through the combination of research results for internal and external library efficiency, it can be obtained that the research of foreign scientists started earlier and the research process is longer and regular. In recent years, research on library efficiency by domestic researchers has increased. In general, it is in progress. Showing how to choose the right models to calculate and adjust the weight of the index requires more effort.

This research aims to analyze the functional and structural approaches of scientific communication in knowledge production by researchers in the field of scientometrics in Iran to show how knowledge production by researchers in a context is affected by the functional and structural approach-oriented.

This research has been done by a mixed method, However, content analysis has been used. The research sample was the scientometric experts who were working in the universities. We had five phases for complementing this research. In the first phase, we tried to identify the scientometricians and extract the required information from the universities websites. In the 2nd phase, we designed a questionnaire to answer the research questions and in the third phase we used semi-structured interviews for the qualitative part of the research. In the fourth phase, the data gathered from the previous phases, are categorized separately. To analyze the data from interviews we used content analysis techniques and finally began to analyze them with the appropriate software such as SPSS.

The finding has shown that researchers in this field tend to use specialized tools to establish their scientific communication and the most common reason for participating in this type of tools are factors such as understanding specific issues, knowing the scientific community around them, etc. Furthermore, it was determined that scientometric studies to produce knowledge used two main tools which are social networks such as Email, Linkedin, ResearchGate, Whatsapp, and Weblogs and scientific search engines like Microsofacademia, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar. Besides, for maintaining precedence in proposing ideas and theories, they prefer to share their knowledge in academic environments through formal channels such as bringing them up in scientific forums. According to the structural approach, most of the facilities provided to researchers by Iran’s scientific institutions were technological facilities and they wanted to increase government support. Creating virtual scientific communication centers and making scientific workgroups in different scientific fields was another finding. Researchers emphasized research development factors such as international and national university cooperation, Open Access to scientific and educational resources, management based on expertise and knowledge, and material and spiritual encouragement of researchers.

Scientometric Researchers tend to use two-way and specialized tools such as databases and believe that this type of communication has improved their communication process in response to their needs. It has also affected the quality of their products and scientific activities. The results showed that virtual communication environments have a high capacity for the production and transfer of science as well as the formation of strong scientific relationships due to their interactive capabilities. It was also found that scientometrics researchers in using such databases more than others to generate knowledge and communicate because of the two-way and specialized nature of communication channels such as Google Scholar. The results showed that the most motivation and reasons for the presence of researchers in social media are factors such as finding out the specific issues of their field, searching and obtaining scientific and educational information, sharing scientific information, obtaining general information and news, and in the second place, things such as Getting to know the scientific community around you, consulting and thinking with other researchers, promoting and developing professional activity, and chatting online are the least used by researchers. Scientometric researchers believe that both official channels (such as databases) and unofficial channels (such as conferences) are suitable for presenting their ideas and theories, but most researchers share their scientific achievements in Formal environments are considered more reliable than informal environments. However, for various reasons, including the filtering of some official channels, some researchers believe that these conditions make it difficult to share their scientific achievements. The most important factors for the strengthening and development of research in society from the perspective of researchers are factors such as: creating a virtual center for scientific and research communication, determining suitable scientific communication patterns and making it coherent, appropriate scientific policy making concerning interdisciplinary approaches, determining scientific topics that can be researched with Interdisciplinary approaches in scientific centers are the formation of appropriate scientific working groups using experts from different fields. From the point of view of researchers in the field of scientometrics, the facilities, and facilities that society should provide to this group of researchers include government support for interdisciplinary research, material support for researchers, and setting up a research and development unit.

Promulgating the new instructions on how to grant incentive base to faculty members (Appendix of Article 53 of the Employment Regulations of Faculty Members, approved by the Board of Trustees of the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology (MSRT)) by the honorable Minister of MSRT and directly emphasizing the need to employ scientometric experts for its implementation was an excuse to dedicate this issue to a review of the position of scientometrics graduates in the field of higher education. In paragraph 10-38-7 of the new notification instruction that has been implemented since spring 2023, universities and higher education institutions are requested to "appoint at least one special expert (with mastery of scientometrics and Technometrics) working in the institution to implement this instruction. This is a valuable indication of the positive view of the country's scientific and executive circles of higher education towards the position of scientometrics and promises a more promising career future for the graduates of this field. Years ago, in the preface of the book "Introduction to Scientometrics: Foundations, Concepts, Relations and Origins" I declared the need for scientometric specialists to obtain the demands and evidence in the country's upstream documents such as the comprehensive scientific map of the country, I was aware of the fact that the use of scientometric experts as one of the most significant areas supporting science policy requires more serious support, and I had demanded a firmer determination for the training of scientometric experts; Because the increasing changes facing the higher education system, I did not doubt that the increasing demand in scientometric experts will be inevitable. In the same years and based on this fundamental need, the Ministry of Health, and Medical Education, as one of the pioneers in the use of scientometric experts in Iran, had correctly declared the establishment of scientometric units in all its universities and research centers, as well as the employment of scientometric experts in these units. After years of continuous efforts, this ministry profits from the countless advantages of science and technologyunits in line with its research and technology policies and planners, both at the Ministry's Research and Technology deputy level and in its affiliated universities and research centers level. In fact, applying the knowledge of scientometric professionals in various fields of higher education has become a necessity; and scientometric experts are an integral part of the higher education system, which previously I have mentioned some of these necessities in the editor-in-chief's Note, No. 6, entitled "Taking advantage of Scientometrics’ graduates in universities, a necessity to release from quasi=research"; and I have also noted some of these necessities in the editor -in -chief's Note, No. 9, entitled "A thought-provoking semi-perspective on the research, educational, and professional backgrounds of the scientometrics discipline at the universities of the world". Currently, despite the existing large volumes of upstream documents, laws, guidelines, and formal notifications that indirectly or even directly apply the scientometrics professionals to meet the needs of the higher education system, it is expected to be more decisive to employ and apply experts and specialists. In this regard, it is not unexpected that the State Administrative and Employment Organization will quickly coordinate, approve and communicate the requirements of MSRT, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education, and other relevant institutions to facilitate the recruitment of these experts. Along with it, universities and research centers also launch their scientometric units based on the new proclamation of the Minister of MSRT, relying on existing upstream approvals and documents. Upstream units such as the Department of Research and Technology, the Department of Education, and the Secretariat of the Board of Directors and Secretariat observe the implementation of the processes of the use of experts and professionals in universities. Certainly, it is only if the universities and higher education systems of the country will benefit more than ever before from the services and support of the experts and specialists to advance science and technology policy goals. On the other hand, as I mentioned in the editor-in-chief's Note, No 4, entitled "The Responsibility of the Scientometrics Graduates", it should not be overlooked that this kind of view of higher education system toward scientometrics from another approach must also be taken to the good; Because it doubles the responsibility of scientometrics graduates in strengthening its scientific and technological powers in order to respond more effectively to the needs of higher education. Currently, with the announcement of the new Employment Regulations of the faculty and its attachment to Article 53 by the Ministry, the opportunity to take advantage of the knowledge of experts and graduates of scientometrics has been provided for universities and research centers in the country, which should be utilized as best as possible. By smoothing the path of recruitment, hiring, and employing scholars and graduates, and also the launch of scientometrics units in universities and research institutes that have not yet done so, the higher education system benefits more than ever before the knowledge of these scholars. However, there will also be questions that should be addressed in this direction; such as: What are the mechanisms needed to guide the universities based in universities and research centers, as well as to observe their activities? What other mechanisms will be needed to enable the higher education system from the studies and activities of universities and research centers in the country? And what other steps should be taken to facilitate the use, recruitment, and employment of scholarship graduates in the country's higher education system and remove barriers in this regard?

Data sharing is considered as a hot topic and a norm in many scientific fields. But it seems that, it was neglected in Iranian Medical fields. This research aiming to identify relevant factors in data sharing. With using semi-structured interview, survey and DEMATEL techniques, the present study identified the influencing factors affecting data sharing. The sample population consisted of 14 experienced Iranian medical researchers in data sharing. The results showed that, education, budgeting, attitudes, and institutional requirements were the most influential factors among others and were pure casual factors. In view of Iranian medical researchers, budgeting and organizational supports had the highest effect on authorship, structures, attitudes, ownership and their trust. Co-authorship, trust among the researchers and research system, legal issues like ownership, and the conditions of data access were not strong casual nor strong effect variables in this research, but had important role in data sharing and should be more considered. Identifying factors influencing data sharing enhance and strengthen data sharing and facilitate movement towards data-driven researches, and scientific communities could apply the advantages of data sharing.

The formation of a knowledge-based economy is one of the central policies of today's societies. The main factor of growth in this economy is the creation of technology, new knowledge, and the application of advanced technology. A knowledge-based economy is a type of economy in which the production and exploitation of knowledge play a significant role in creating wealth (Dasgupta & David, 1994). Based on this, the relationship between science and technology in the framework of pursuing sustainable economic development has received wide attention, and one of the ways to investigate the interactions between science and technology is to examine the citation between them (Looy & et al, 2003). Through the measurement of citations between scientific productions and patents, it is possible to find out their applicability and determine which researches have the potential to be commercialized. Among are universities as knowledge organizations which play an essential role in countries' economies in facilitating the formation of a knowledge-based economy. Therefore, it has become necessary to evaluate the performance of universities due to their vital role in the economic growth and social development of our society. Since these institutions are known as sources of scientific and technological production, the purpose of this research is to compare the flow of knowledge in Iranian universities and the top 100 universities worldwide by using citation measurement between articles and patents.

This research is an applied study conducted with a documentary method and a scientometrics approach. The research community was determined in a targeted manner and includes 8 top universities in Iran and 50 top universities worldwide, which were jointly present in the five ranking systems of Times, US News, Shanghai, Leiden, and SciVision. In this study, the information related to patent licenses citing articles, the number of publications citing patent licenses, the average number of patent licenses cited by the university to articles of the same university, and citing the patent licenses of each university from the SciVal database in the period, time 2009 to 2018 were extracted on June 26, 2019. Finally, the study's data were analyzed using the descriptive statistics of "Frequency Distribution and Mean" and with the help of Excel software.

Stanford University in the index of patent licenses citing articles with 12.31%, in the index of the number of publications cited in patent licenses with 11.59, in the index of the average number of patent licenses citing articles of the same university with 9.68% and in the index Citation of patents was the most frequent with 14.02%. Also, the investigation of the performance of Iranian universities and the world's top universities revealed that their activities had a negative trend based on the investigated indicators and had a poor performance in a ten year period. These results showed that the average number of patent licenses citing articles in the world's top universities is 2210.35. From 2010 to 10.41 patent licenses in 2018, and according to this index, Iranian universities from 75.75 in 2009 to 2 patent licenses. The average number of publications cited by patent licenses of the world's top universities from 504.85 in 2009 to 9.11 documents in 2018 and Iranian universities from 25.62 in 2009 to 0.375 in 2018, the average number of patent licenses in each university citing the same university's articles From 335.48 in 2009 to 1.02 in 2018, and this rate in Iranian universities have increased from 53.17 in 2009 to 0.2 in 2018, The average number of citations to patent licenses of the world's top universities reached 107 cases in 2018, from 2442.29 in 2009. Also, Iranian universities have performed 24, 17, 6, and 26 times less than the average of the top universities worldwide in all the mentioned indicators.

One of the primary, leading, prominent roles of universities is to produce usable knowledge. To attain such an aim, it is necessary to have a relationship with industries. One of the connecting factors between universities and industries is the attention to research and development and the creation of quality technology and production. The results of the present study showed that universities had performed poorly in achieving their mission. In many universities, patents are not developed simultaneously as articles. Even their scientific productions are not considered for patents and are not applied. Therefore, the publishing of articles and patent licenses to increase their number without considering their quality cannot cause economic prosperity. For this reason, universities must try to raise the quality of scientific productions and improve their rank by timely politicizing the issues on the way; solving and promoting the culture of cooperation with industry to commercialize research to achieve more efficient results.

The most important steps that can affect the actual performance of journals are the evaluation, validation, and correct ranking of scientific journals; Because the journals placed in the top positions always have more chances to receive points and better opportunities. Increasing the chances of receiving high-quality articles from prominent authors and then being in the spotlight of the specialized field and providing better grounds for moving in the center of influencing the global flow of specialized knowledge are among the advantages that a journal gains as a result of being placed in the top positions. However, the performance of citation databases such as JCR, Scimago, and PJCR is of particular importance; and as much as the correct functioning of these databases can lead to the correct ranking of journals, their incorrect functioning can lead to unrealistic and incorrect validation and ranking of journals. In the meantime, the subject classification considered by databases for journals is regarded as one of the most important factors affecting their validation and correct ranking. Because it gives sense to the position of journals, and it is of great importance to show the real position of specialized journals. Since many journal evaluation indices such as IF, SJR, Q, and the like determine the rank of journals covered by the database through the subject area in ​​that journal and comparing it to other journals in that subject area, the importance of subject classification that the database considers for journals will be more understandable. Perhaps with the inappropriate subject classification of journals by databases such as JCR, Scimago, and PJCR and placing sub-specialized, specialized, and semi-specialized journals of a field next to each other the ranking of some valuable specialized journals even introduced as Q1 journals for years have been faced with uncertainty and the risk of degradation; Because naturally, due to the limited audience of specialized journals, each subject group will have a lower chance of receiving citations than the specialized and semi-specialized journals in the same subject group. And if the ranking of the current journals in each subject group is done regardless of the sub-specialized, specialized, and semi-specialized subject areas of the journals and only based on the number of citations they receive, it cannot be expected to convey reliable and correct messages about the true status of journals to the scientific community; and without a doubt, there will be many gaps in scientific fairness. For example, we can refer to the LIS subject classification in the JCR database. In recent years, by adding a significant number of journals in the field of management to the subject group of LIS, competition is hardened for journals focusing on the specialized and sub-specialized layers of this field such as scientometrics, information organization, and the like; And it has decreased the chances of receiving citations for specialized journals in this field. The same criticism is applied to the PJCR base in ISC on a much wider level. There are many specialized journals in this database, which have been degraded in terms of Q and gradually moved to lower ranks according to the macroscopic view of the subject classification, which is expected to improve the subject classification system of journals in that database, evaluating the journals by including sub-specialized and specialized layers Journals are made. On the other hand, this database is expected to improve the transparency of the results it provides for the evaluation of journals by establishing a link between the citation statistics and the cited records of the journals it covers and guiding the journals to obtain more accurate information. For instance, it would be desirable for a journal in the field of knowledge and information science to know how many citations are received from journals in the macro-level subject (for example, humanities and social sciences), and how many citations are from journals in the middle-level subject. (for example, librarianship, archive, and codicology and manuscript research) and how many citations from the present journals were in the micro-level subject (library and information sciences)? Despite this, it seems that the Q assigned to the journals has been calculated and determined based on the total citations received from the journals present in PJCR, including the journals present at the macro, medium, and micro subject levels. In this case, since the specialized journals of each field are not comparable with the semi-specialized journals of their field in terms of the number of readers, the evaluation results of the journals provided by this database will not reflect the real and correct position of the sub-specialized journals without including the specialized considerations emphasized in scientometrics. In this way, what is more, worthy of consideration is whether the evaluation and ranking of journals in the form of incorrect subject groups can be aligned with scientific fairness and show the true status and quality of journals. And in order to move in the direction of scientific fairness, instead of relying on macro subject groups that contain a significant amount of unbalanced journals, should not the rankings and citation validations of journals be based on small subject groups that represent the main and real subject area of ​​the journal??

The purpose of this research is to study the components of the information analysis in information retrieval systems.

The current study has been done using systematic review and qualitative content analysis. The statistical population includes research articles in the field of information analysis in information retrieval systems, which have been found by search strategies from the beginning to 2019 in the scientific databases (Scopus, Science Direct, Pubmed, and IEEE). PRISMA Statement was used for sampling. First 2048 articles were identified and then after four steps (Identification, Screening, Eligibility, and Inclusion), 83 articles were selected for final analysis.  

For answering the research question about what is effective components of information analysis in Information retrieval systems, there are five basic categories was obtained Analytics (“Benchmarking”, “Collaboration and Scientometrics”, “Text analysis”), Description (“Analyzed fields”, “Representation levels”, “Presentation”), Human-computer interaction (“Navigation”, “Searching”, “Filtering”, “Sorting”, “user-system dialog”, “Links”, “Personalization”), Information management (“System management”, “User management”, “Helps”) and Information analysis results (“Exploration”, “Psychological aspects”).

The obtained categorization in current research can be noticed for information retrieval systems design more analytically and evaluate them.

Earlier, in the Editorial note of the 13th issue of the journal, regarding the ranking of universities, these issues were raised that "Is the university that ranks first in the existing rankings and macro-rankings really the best in all disciplines and fields of science and technology?" and in that case, "Is it possible to be sure that such a university has the necessary capabilities and competencies to participate in all fields and specialized fields of science and technology?" After discussing this, it was finally emphasized that the processes and indicators of the existing ranking systems can be more efficient and effective if they put the ranking of universities on both their micro and macro levels simultaneously; So that in the micro-approach based on a subject-oriented perspective, the ranking of educational / research groups of universities should be on the agenda and the rank of each university specialty should be determined in relation to the rank of similar specialized groups in other universities. Then, based on the macro approach, the overall ranking of each university is determined based on the average rank of the total number of specialized departments of each university.
Nevertheless, the major question now is that even if micro and macro approaches are adopted by ranking systems and accept the undeniable importance of top rankings in ranking systems, "Is it right to enact laws to direct the focus and orientation of the activities of faculty and students towards the promotion of the university's international reputation?" If true, "What are the characteristics of these laws and regulations?" And if not, "then how can we expect universities to excel in these international ranking systems and take advantage of their undeniable advantages?" Although it takes more time to answer these questions, here are a few points:The micro-approach to ranking allows for more accurate assessments and avoids errors which merely provide the overall ranking of universities in the macro-approach. Sometimes some higher education systems are quick to focus on legislation that requires students and faculty members to publish articles in international journals as much as possible before thinking about the real purpose and philosophy of ranking systems. In some cases, such haste causes the basic features of these ranking systems to be ignored, and as a result, the higher education system ceases to identify capable academic groups and goes astray. Therefore, taking a micro-approach to rank can itself be an effective tool in better and more accurately explaining existing facts.
The fact is that despite the importance of rank for the university, if rules and regulations are enacted that affect the educational and research activities of students and researchers in a one-dimensional, one-sided and inconsistent with the university program and path, not only the results may be not desirable, but it can divert the university from its original quality and purpose and confront the scientific community with a huge volume of pseudo-research. As mentioned before in notes of the Research Week in 1393 and 1394 at Online News Agency in Iran, and also in the Editorial Note No. 6 of the Scientometrics Research Journal regarding pseudo-research and the factors affecting its growth, it was emphasized that the phenomenon of pseudo-research occurs mainly based on ephemeral needs and job or educational demands that are sometimes stimulated by the regulations and guidelines in the higher education system. Therefore, the rules and regulations that are set in this way should consider the essential conditions for conducting quality research and be consistent with the existing facts in this regard.
Although achieving outstanding rankings in ranking systems requires top scores in a wide range of educational, research, and other indicators, but this should not lead to ignoring the effectiveness of activities at the university and lead the university to enact laws that merely pursue a quantitative increase in academic output, albeit aimlessly, in scattered subject areas without the necessary quality. Hence, it is essential that universities, while maintaining the effectiveness of their activities, also move with authority in the path of gaining top rankings. To this end, each university should always draw its own missions and thematic fields according to the needs of the country and the international developments, and lead the faculty members and students to move in that direction. In this case, while preventing the dispersal of work, the effectiveness and quality of activities are maintained and the possibility of obtaining top rankings for the university is provided.
Another noteworthy point is the inextricable link between education and research; So that the quality of research cannot be expected to be strengthened by underestimating the quality of education. Education and research are always necessary for each other and many factors directly affect both of them. Attracting quality and efficient students and faculty members, appropriate support for targeted research and educational activities, preventing an unreasonable increase in the number of weak and inefficient higher education centers, providing appropriate electronic access to credible scientific resources, information literacy training, and many more are among the factors that can affect education and research and, consequently, directly affect the university ranking. It is clear that if the identification and provision of such factors are considered, the relationship between the rank obtained and the academic capacity of universities will be significantly closer to each other. In this case, it can be expected that more capable universities will have a better chance of gaining top international rankings; because these factors will lead universities to better education and research.

 The study aims to identify and explain the structure, approaches, and orientations of engineering science and technology (S&T) evaluation indicators in the USA as a developed country, Turkey as a developing and Muslim country, and South Korea as an Asian developed country to provide a framework for developing such indicators in Iran.

Printed and electronic documents and literature related to the field were studied using the library method and an attempt was made to identify and extract the basis for compiling these indicators in each of these countries. Then, the semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 experts from the government-industry-academia sections who were selected using the purposive sampling to be obtained their views on the orientation of each of these indicators, and also its relevance to the needs of Iran. Then, the findings were analyzed with a thematic analysis approach.

 After identifying and explaining the indicators related to each dimension and component and removing similar indicators, about 845 indicators were identified and information about each indicator, including the title, purpose, and source of index extraction was provided, and the experts’ views on the indicators orientation and the importance of them to evaluate engineering S&T in Iran were obtained. Finally, the main framework of the necessary orientations for the proposed indicators of evaluation of engineering S&T in Iran was presented.

Conclustion: 

The results show each of the selected countries in addition to benefiting from the S&T evaluation common indicators, also has thematic orientations that can more effectively reflect the activities of S&T in fields such as engineering. The most important of these indicators are "patents", "research and development expenditures", "technology industry", "international trade in high-level technology" and "role-playing in the development of green growth technologies". Since evaluation indicators are always considered as the most important characteristic of the orientation of S&T policies of countries, using the group of indicators mentioned in the national reports of these countries can indicate that the scientific policies of these countries orientation to focus on specific areas of engineering development.

Ranking and leveling of universities at the national and international levels is one of the most important issues that has occupied the minds of university administrators, planners, and policymakers in recent years and has influenced their programs. Today, not only university administrators, but also employers in the society and industry sectors who seek to attract more qualified graduates are constantly monitoring universities' rankings in international ranking systems. Therefore, volunteers and study enthusiasts also mention the ranking of universities as one of the most decisive criteria for choosing the university of their choice. Therefore, nowadays, it is an undeniable fact that the presence of a university in the top ranks determines the prestige and scientific status of that university and provides more opportunities for it to play roles, influence, and gain better positions nationally and internationally. So, it is not far-fetched to expect universities to strive for higher rankings by taking appropriate divisions. Nevertheless, scrutiny of the results provided by existing ranking and grading systems has raised the important issues: "Is the university, which ranks first in the existing macro-ranking and leveling systems really the best in all disciplines and fields of science and technology"?, In this case, "Is it possible to be sure that such a university has the necessary capabilities and competencies to participate in all specialized fields of science and technology"? Of course, no creative mind can answer this question in the affirmative; because in practice, no university, even if it is in the first rank, will still be able to have the first word in all subject fields and to be ranked first in all specialized departments. Thus, the question remains, "What good would these rankings do if we could not rely on the results of existing rankings and leveling to identify top academic departments"? and "How can one expect the results of these rankings as an effective tool to enable science and technology policymakers and planners to better identify more capable universities and benefit from their greater involvement in various specialized science and technology"? Although providing detailed answers to these types of questions requires extensive scientometrics studies, the best answer that can be provided here is that current rankings and leveling, due to having a macro approach to ranking and focusing on the presentation of the macro rank of universities, should be considered as "semi-complete rankings". So, the specialized abilities of academic departments should not be judged based on the results of the incomplete rankings. In order to complete and transform the results of the existing macro ranking systems into reliable and applicable results for specialized affairs, their approaches and indicators should be seriously reviewed and their implementation processes should continue until the ranking stage of academic specialized departments. In other words, the processes and indicators of existing ranking systems can be more efficient and effective if they put university ranking on their agenda at both the micro and macro levels at the same time. In the micro-approach based on a subject-oriented perspective, the ranking of educational/research departments of universities should be on the agenda and the rank of each academic specialized department in relation to the rank of similar specialized departments in other universities should be determined. Then, based on the macro approach, the overall ranking of each university should be determined based on the average rank of all specialized departments of each university. In this case, the main application of the micro rankings results will be at the national and specialized level and can provide more reliable results in order to attract partnership with top academic departments and entrust important and specialized matters to them to the science and technology system. In addition, the results of micro-rankings can be very effective in attracting international students and faculty members, as well as strengthening the university's international scientific collaboration and mobility, and so on. In contrast, the results of macro-rankings can act as a symbol and support at the international level and show the scientific strength and capability of universities and countries at a general level. Finally, one should not overlook the fact that the ranking and leveling of universities is separate from categories such as the evaluation of academic productivity or academic competency of universities, and the better ranking of a university should not be considered as its better scientific productivity or competency; because the level of scientific productivity of each university, after normalization operations and determining the ratio of each university activity to the components such as the number of students and faculty members, activity history, comprehensiveness or specialization of the university and other similar issues is determined; After the normalization of the indicators, it may become clear that the scientific productivity of a small and young university has been far greater than that of a large and old university. Therefore, identifying the scientific productivity of universities, even after the results of micro and macro rankings are available, requires a more in-depth scientometric analysis of the results.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of authority control on researchers' scientific productivity in Google Scholar and Research Gate databases.

This research as an applied and exploratory study compares authority control in Google Scholar and Research Gate Databases by using library, experimental, and comparative methods and analyzes its impact on researchers' scientific productivity. A total of 100 out of 2652 external and internal researchers in the field of information and science who had at least one article indexed in Web of Science and Scopus databases as well as one or more H-indexes between the ages of 2010 to 2018, using purposive sampling, were considered as the sample of this study.

Google Scholar and Search Gate databases are not found except for a few key items such as small name, big name, organizational affiliation, researcher email, specific tools that can be helpful in obtaining of researcher’s identity.

Conclustion:

 Significant errors and failures in the authentication of researchers at both Google Scholar and Research Gate sites indicate a lack of documentation and organizing tools to solve challenges and issues that cause serious unforeseen damage and errors in the author's documentation control.

The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluation of our scientific cooperation between Iranian researchers in the field of microelectronics, which is reflected in the Scopus database.

The present Research is an applied scientometrics method that is carried out by documentary procedure and the required data is collected from the Scopus database. The research community consists of all the scientific productions of researchers in the field of microelectronics, which are indexed in the Scopus between 2000 and 2017.

The findings of the research indicate that the co-authorship in the field of microelectronics has been growing trend over the years; this trend has been decreasing in the years 2006-2011-2014.  In addition, the prevailing the most collaborative pattern in this research is 3 co-authors with a percentage of 32.16 (1338) and 2 co-authors with a percentage of 30.50 (1269). 

Conclustion: 

The average co-integration index is 0.93, the co-operation index is 3.06 and the co-authorship coefficient is 0.58. Among the researchers Hadidi and Khoei from the University of Urimia and Navi from the University of Shahid Beheshti are the most active writers in the field of microelectronics.

The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the research productivity of researchers, universities and institutes in the field of cognitive science in Iran. in accordance with the goals and nature of this subject, this is methodological applied research, and documentary and survey methods were used to perform it.

The Statistical community of this research includes all researchers, universities and research institutes in the field of cognitive science in Iran that have published articles on the Web site from 1983 to 2017. The number of articles studied in this research is 1317, and they were done by 94 researchers. Furthermore, in order to determine the weight and importance of each of the indicators, we benefited from the opinions of 30 scientific research experts and subject specialists as a part of the research community through questionnaires. In relevance to the research questions, Web of Science, Google Scholar and questionnaires containing 10 questions for assessing the research productivity of researchers and universities in the field of cognitive science, were used as the data gathering tools, these tools were previously verified by faculty members and experts.  Due to a coefficient of 0.96 obtained by Cronbach's alpha, the questionnaire’s reliability was confirmed. Answering questions and testing the research hypothesis were done at two levels of descriptive and inferential statistics. At the level of descriptive statistics, frequency, average and standard deviation were used. At the level of inferential statistics, statistical tests of variance analysis, the minimum difference of significance and Friedman were used. Excel and SPSS software were used for this job.

According to the research findings, the ranking of research productivity of researchers, universities and institutes in the field of cognitive science in Iran is as follows: The University of Tabriz (with a weighted sum of 848.3) ranked first. The Univ Tehran Med Sci (with a weighted sum of 572.4) was ranked second. Amirkabir University (with a weight score of 519.9) took the third place.

The results show that the indexes of Q1, Q2 & H-Index of researchers in the field of cognitive science are of great importance.

The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the research productivity of universities and institutes in the field of expert systems in Iran.

In accordance with the goals and nature of this subject, the current study is methodological applied research in which, documentary and survey methods were utilized. The Statistical community of this research includes all researchers, universities, and research institutes in the field of expert systems in Iran who have published articles on the website from 1996 to 2016. Due to a coefficient of 0.96 obtained by Cronbach's alpha, the questionnaire’s reliability was confirmed by using Excel and SPSS software.

The results indicated that the indexes of patented patents of researchers in the field of expert systems are of great importance. According to the research findings, the ranking of research productivity of researchers, universities, and institutes in the field of expert systems in Iran is as follows: As for the universities, the University of Tehran ranked first and Amirkabir University stood in the second.

The results revealed that in two qualification and quantitative dimensions and without considering the researchers' population, University of Tehran has the most productivity in the related fields of the expert systems.

The goal of this paper is to studying of structure and finding components of analysis of researches in citation databases with study on Scival analysis tool. For that first by reviewing literature, the components o information analysis of researches was extracted and then based on that, four module of Scival (Overview, Benchmarking, Collaboration and trends) according to information analysis state, and in particular according to analysis type, the analyzed identity, the analysed field and filtering fields were studied and a structure of analysis manner in this tool were presented. So the framework of information analysis of researches based on the results of Scival study were completed. So the framework of information analysis of researches consist of this main components: Description, Classification, Analyzing, Evaluation, Exploration, information management, and visualization, that each of them has sub component. Based on results and as for Overview module studied an identity, description analysis is important in it. Also competency in the exploration component had Proper function in this module. Also analysis in Benchmarking module focus on evaluation which it coused exploration. So these two components (Evaluation and Exploration) are highlighted in this module. Also in Cooperation module, Exploration component with its analyzing is significant and with identifying Potential and current cooperation helps in making decisions for future cooperations. this module also with its visualizations works well toward Exploration component and by presenting scientific developments, gaps, cores, participants, cooperation opportunities, new research strategies and so on help in exploration analysis. Visualization and Rich and fit reports to support research strategies in specific identity are other components exist in information analysis in ScaVal. Also results show the identities that were analyzed with per module, indicate the essence of that module and it is true about SciVal.