| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to identify the global leaders in the field of "scientific authority" and to explain the key areas emphasized at the international level for achieving this authority.
Methodology: This research employed scientometrics as its primary method, and was classified as applied research. The objective was to create scientific maps of the field of scientific references based on 482 records from the Web of Science citation database, covering the period from 1981 to 2023. To analyze the statistical population, the study utilized Excel, Ucinet, and VOSviewer software.
Findings: To analyze scientific authority, ten topic clusters were identified based on the co-occurrence map. The topics of scientific authority, climate change, science, nanotechnology, trust, and framing have created the most links between map concepts. According to the density map presented, the two primary subjects—scientific authority and climate change—emerged as the central and most prominent topics, with the majority of research activity occurring within these areas. Three concepts—“risk perception,” “public understanding of science,” and “science communication”—were closely associated with the core of scientific authority on the density map. Consequently, scientists must address these three challenges to establish scientific authority in their respective fields. The cultural authority of science serves as a precursor to acquiring scientific authority. By legitimizing the perspectives of thinkers among the general public, the overall understanding of science is enhanced. With the growing public trust in the role of science and technology in addressing fundamental societal problems and challenges, science is increasingly recognized as a responsible authority for problem-solving. However, in the map of scientific authority, the areas of boundary work, public health, genetics, citizen science, and climate change remain underdeveloped. Scientists in these fields have yet to establish the necessary credibility to gain scientific authority, and consequently, they have struggled to earn public trust as they ought to. Cluster 10 covered the concepts of citizen science and science communication, and it was identified as the least developed cluster due to its coverage of the fewest concepts. This cluster underscored the limited interaction between scientists and non-scientists. This cluster emphasized that citizen science, is defined as "public participation in scientific research", through participatory monitoring and participatory research. This approach not only improves the capacity of the scientific community but also increases public understanding of science. Further investigation into the discourse dynamics between scientists and the public may offer new perspectives to improve science communication processes and enhance public engagement with science. The United States is a global leader in the field of scientific authority, having published nearly half of the scientific output in this area (40.46%). With a notable disparity, England, Germany, Brazil, and France occupied the subsequent positions, leading to the conclusion that other countries were striving to establish scientific authority on a global scale, albeit with a considerable gap compared to the United States. Iran ranked 15th in the world, contributing 0.83% to global scientific production. Therefore, Iran is at the beginning of its journey to becoming a global scientific authority. With universities contributing 92% of the nation's scientific output, they are regarded as the primary institutions through which countries can establish themselves as scientific leaders. The top universities in the world for scientific authority include the University of Wisconsin System, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of California System. All three are American institutions, ranked first to third, having published 25, 23, and 16 scientific works, respectively. These universities are primarily organized as university systems, which facilitates the integration of inter-university scientific networks, thereby accelerating the achievement of scientific authority for these institutions.
Conclusion: The graph illustrating the trend of scientific production in the field of scientific authority has shown consistent growth, particularly since 2019, when this upward trend has accelerated. Therefore, it has been concluded that, in recent years, the topic of scientific authority has gained greater significance in the past across various fields. One of the obstacles in the current crisis of scientific authority is the lack of skills among scientists in effectively communicating with non-scientific audiences interested in their fields of expertise. In a situation where both parties—the general public and scientists—are not trained to understand each other's communication norms, establishing effective communication becomes nearly impossible. It is recommended that universities, research institutions, and technological centers offer training courses to address this issue. |