قالات هجله سايغتومتريكس بابرجسبه(ى بيبسوفوهى و هميوشانى كيدواؤههاى وضوعى كفكوه تويفكرهاى يذيرفته شده درسرءغو ١نهاى

Objective: The purpose of this paper was to investigate the rate of keywords overlapping in the articles with Bibsonomy labels and accepted descriptors in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in the Scientometrics journals. Methodology: This paper was an applied study based on investigating of overlapping keywords in the articles. The research method is an observational content analysis. The data gathering tool was a researcher-made checklist. In this study, 500 keywords were collected from the published papers from 2017 to December of 2018 as population data (new article keywords) regardless of thematic categorization. It was only aimed to collect the keywords from a specialized source in scientometrics field then entered them into Excel software. So, 50 keywords with more than 1000 frequency on the all three Scientometrics sites were selected as a sample. The samples were surveyed from the point of, frequency of subscriptions with the bibsonomy social site and various dimensions of LCSH. Finally, the results were obtained for analyzing data by the use of descriptive statistics (with the criterion of availability in the sites of the research questions), the percentage of subscription frequency and inferential statistics (non-parametric test and Spearman's correlation). The SPSS software was also utilized. Findings: The 500 extracted keywords from Scientometrics articles were ordered from top to bottom in Excel, and then 50 keywords with high frequency were obtained from the point of availability and frequency in bibsonomy and LCSH, and finally the percentage of their commonalities was obtained. The results showed that there is an 82 percent overlap between the social labels of the Bibsonomy site and the descriptive headings of the LCSH which are related to the same labels. Also، there was a 28 percent overlap between the keywords of scientometrics articles in the Scientometrics Journal and the descriptive headings of the LCSH, with the same related keywords. Conclusion: The authors did not agree on the choice of keywords in their articles with tags on Bibsonomy and on the LCSH, and the least similarities are also not based on the specific rules. Therefore، it would be better for the authors to use a specific standard in choosing keywords، such as: the topic title of the Congress. In fact, the present study found that the authors made no reference to the LCSH. But, the idea of labeling users on the Bibsonomy site was closer to that of the Congressional Topical Indicators. So, the authors will improve the access to their article by the choice of keywords by the tags of both ranking sites such as Bibsonomy and descriptors of the LCSH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]