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

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.

[1]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , 2005 .

[2]  Michael Gaebel,et al.  MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses. EUA Occasional Papers. , 2013 .

[3]  Zahid Ashraf Wani,et al.  Courses beyond borders: A case study of MOOC platform Coursera , 2017 .

[4]  M. Clarke,et al.  Visualization studies on evidence‐based medicine domain knowledge (series 2): structural diagrams of author networks , 2011, Journal of evidence-based medicine.

[5]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[6]  Anna M. Foss,et al.  International Scientific Collaboration in HIV and HPV: A Network Analysis , 2014, PloS one.

[7]  B. L. Clarke.  Multiple Authorship Trends in Scientific Papers , 1964, Science.

[8]  V. Pulla Reddy,et al.  Authorship Pattern and Collaborative Research in the Field of Zoology , 2011 .

[9]  Yiming Zhao,et al.  Measuring the stability of scientific collaboration , 2018, Scientometrics.

[10]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Across institutional boundaries?: Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience , 2008 .

[11]  D. Sonnenwald.  Scientific collaboration , 2007, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology.

[12]  M. López-Ferrer.  Co-authorship and citation networks in Spanish history of science research , 2009 .

[13]  Sameer Kumar,et al.  Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations , 2018, Publ..

[14]  Darco Jansen,et al.  MOOCs for Opening Up Education and the OpenupEd Initiative , 2015 .

[15]  Félix de Moya Anegón,et al.  Visualization of scientific co-authorship in Spanish universities: From regionalization to internationalization , 2009, Aslib Proc..

[16]  Noriko Hara,et al.  An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems , 2004 .

[18]  Laurel Smith‐Doerr,et al.  Collaboration and Gender Equity among Academic Scientists , 2017 .

[19]  Venkataraman Balaji,et al.  Making Sense of MOOCs: A Guide for Policy-Makers in Developing Countries , 2016 .

[20]  Mathieu Bastian,et al.  Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks , 2009, ICWSM.

[21]  N. Bendle,et al.  Understanding Co-Authorship among Consumer Behavior Scholars , 2016 .

[22]  Yan Wang,et al.  Scientific collaboration in China as reflected in co-authorship , 2005, Scientometrics.

[23]  Jose Antonio C. Santos,et al.  Co-authorship networks: Collaborative research structures at the journal level , 2016 .

[24]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Research Paper: A Longitudinal Social Network Analysis of the Editorial Boards of Medical Informatics and Bioinformatics Journals , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[25]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[26]  Sameer Kumar,et al.  Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010 , 2013, Scientometrics.

[27]  Julia Osca Lluch,et al.  Co-authorship and citation networks in Spanish history of science research , 2009, Scientometrics.

[28]  Mehmet Ali Köseoglu,et al.  Authorship Trends, Collaboration Patterns, and Co-Authorship Networks in Lodging Studies (1990–2016) , 2018 .

[29]  M. Newman.  Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  Brian D. Voss.  Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): A Primer for University and College Board Members. An AGB White Paper. , 2013 .

[31]  Shirley Williams,et al.  MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012 , 2013 .

[32]  Félix de Moya Anegón,et al.  Global analysis of the E-learning scientific domain: a declining category? , 2018, Scientometrics.

[33]  Aeen Mohammadi,et al.  A Survey of the Collaboration Rate of Authors in the E-Learning Subject Area over a 10-Year Period (2005-2014) Using Web of Science , 2017 .

[34]  Jungwon Yoon,et al.  The normalization of co-authorship networks in the bibliometric evaluation: the government stimulation programs of China and Korea , 2016, Scientometrics.

[35]  Ummy Gusti Salamah,et al.  MOOC Platforms: a Review and Comparison , 2018, International Journal of Engineering & Technology.

[36]  Maria Prosperina Vitale,et al.  The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance , 2013, Soc. Networks.