SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2019 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 4

The Co-Authorship and Subject Areas Network in MOOCS’ Scientific Production in Web of Science

Shadi ASADZANDI
Rita MOJTAHEDZADEH
Aeen MOHAMMADI
Shiva MALGARD
Hamed RASHIDI
Pages
73–84
Publication Date
2019-10-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results of this study, MOOCs’ network suffers from the lack of collaboration.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is a new phenomenon in online learning which are held by higher education institutions and universities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:All productions regarding scientific areas of MOOCs were extracted from the Web of Science from the beginning till 2016.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of this study, MOOCs’ network suffers from the lack of collaboration.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Co-authorship · MOOCs · scientific production

Abstract

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is a new phenomenon in online learning which are held by higher education institutions and universities. MOOCs is larger than normal classes and it is free as well. The present study aims to specify the authors’ structure of co-authorship and the required indicators in analyzing co-authorship, co-authorship network of countries, organizations and subject areas in MOOCs. All productions regarding scientific areas of MOOCs were extracted from the Web of Science from the beginning till 2016. There are 2195 extracted documents that were saved as txt and isi formats. Co-authorship drawing networks were prepared by website software CiteSpace version 5.1.R8 SE and Gephi version 0.9.2. MOOCs co-authorship network is regarded as spare that means the number of ties is less than nodes. This indicates that authors in this area have fewer tendencies for scientific relations. European countries play the main role in this area and their co-authorship is considerable. Harvard University has considerable co-authorship in this domain. According to the results of this study, MOOCs’ network suffers from the lack of collaboration.

🔖

Cite This Article

ASADZANDI, S., MOJTAHEDZADEH, R., MOHAMMADI, A., MALGARD, S., RASHIDI, H. (2019). The Co-Authorship and Subject Areas Network in MOOCS’ Scientific Production in Web of Science. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 4, 73–84. https://ajindex.com/articles/140338

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Icwsm, 8, 361-362.
  2. Braun, T. (2005). Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&t Systems. Scientometrics, 63(1), 185-188.
  3. Bu, Y., Murray, D. S., Ding, Y., Huang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2018). Measuring the stability of scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 114(2), 463-479.
  4. Clarke, B. L. (1964). Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers. Science, 143(3608), 822-824.
  5. De Stefano, D., Fuccella, V., Vitale, M. P., & Zaccarin, S. (2013). The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Social Networks, 35(3), 370-381.
  6. Gaebel, M. (2014). MOOCs: Massive open online courses: EUA. Gupta, N., & Chohda, N. (2018). Evinced E-Learning published research in scopus database from 2007– 2016: The scientometric study. Gyankosh-The Journal of Library and Information Management, 9(1), 24-32.
  7. Gusti Salamah, U., & Alayham Abbas Helmi, R. (2018). MOOC Platforms: a Review and Comparison. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4,11), 70-74.
  8. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.
  9. Hariri, N., & Nikzad, M. (2011). Co-authorship networks of Iranian articles in library and information science, psychology, management and economics in ISI during 2000-2009. Iranian journal of Information Processing & Management, 26(4), 825-844.
  10. Heinze, T., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across institutional boundaries?: Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research policy, 37(5), 888-899.
  11. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research policy, 26(1), 1-18.
  12. Keenan, S., & Cochrane, P. A. (1964). The Journal Literature of Physics: A Comprehensive Study Based on Physics Abstracts: American Institute of Physics. Koseoglu, M. A., Okumus, F., Putra, E. D., Yildiz, M., & Dogan, I. C. (2018). Authorship trends, collaboration patterns, and co-authorship networks in lodging studies (1990–2016). Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(5), 561-582.
  13. Kumar, S. (2018). Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations. Publicati