پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 21 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 301 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,173 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,211,899 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,380,332 |
112 Years of Medical English: A Scientometric Analysis | ||
| Applied Linguistics Inquiry | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 1، شماره 2، آذر 2023، صفحه 74-92 اصل مقاله (1.31 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22077/ali.2023.7268.1029 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Nargess Hekmati* 1؛ Ali Behdani2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor in Applied Linguistics, Department of General Courses, School of Medicine, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran | ||
| 2M.A. in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study addresses the science mapping and visualization of the 112 years of academic literature on medical English. The data for the present study was retrieved from the Web of Science database, which contains all English-only articles from 1912 to 2024. The scientometric techniques and analysis were done using VOSviewer. These methods of analysis include publication and citation patterns, co-authorship and co-occurrence networks, and bibliometric coupling of items. The findings indicated that the total number of articles published in Medical English from 1912 to 2024 was 10396. The publications surged from 1988 to 1992 and had a steady rise until its peak in 2023. Citations, however, differ from publication trends and have fluctuated during this time frame. Furthermore, authors, institutions, and the country's collaborative networks were examined to have a snapshot of the relationships across disciplines. The findings revealed a strong correlation between co-authorship and bibliometric coupling of countries, which shows that the USA, the UK, Australia, and Canada collaborate the most within the literature. Universities of San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington are considered among the leading research institutions in terms of output, while universities such as San Francisco, Harvard University, and Toronto rank among the top in terms of citations. Moving to author-level metrics, the output and citation patterns indicate that De Lusignan and Schillinger are the most prolific authors. At the same time, Shimada, Yoshida, and Grumbach have the most citations. Moreover, keyword co-occurrences showed that keywords such as "care," "impact," "healthcare," "health," and "quality" tended to appear most frequently in the literature. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Medical English؛ Scientometric analysis؛ English for specific purposes (ESP)؛ Bibliometric review؛ Science mapping | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Bachman, L. F., Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford University Press. Belcher, D. (2009). What ESP is and can be: An introduction. In D. Belcher (ed.), English for specific purposes in theory and practice (1–20). University of Michigan. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. Lawrence Erlbaum Dudley-Evans, T., St John, M. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press. Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes. Routledge. Kessler, M. (1963). An experimental study of bibliographic coupling between technical papers. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 9(1), 49–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/tit.1963.1057800 Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge University Press. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of English for specific purposes. John Wiley & Sons. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Salager-Meyer, F. (2014). Origin and development of English for medical purposes. Part I: Research on written medical discourse. Medical Writing, 23 (1), 49-51. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480613Z.000000000187 Ullah, M., Shahid, A., Din, I. ud, Roman, M., Assam, M., Fayaz, M., Ghadi, Y., & Aljuaid, H. (2022). Analyzing interdisciplinary research using co-authorship networks. Complexity, 2022, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2524491 Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z., & Duan, Z. (2015). Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 967–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23437 Zhou, X., Zhou, M., Huang, D., & Cui, L. (2022). A probabilistic model for co-occurrence analysis in bibliometrics. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 128, 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2022. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 197 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 276 |
||
نماد الکترونیک
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب