Purpose: – The dynamism of new economy requires information professionals not only to create knowledge quickly but also to acquire and apply knowledge through knowledge sharing (KS). So, determining factors that may influence knowledge sharing within an organization or among organizations has become an important area of research. This paper aims to review determinant factors influencing inter- and intra-organizational knowledge sharing in order to offer a framework.Design/methodology/approach: – The present paper proceeds in three phases. In the first phase, the published literature on knowledge sharing has been reviewed extensively with consideration of their empirical applications. Next, based on the understanding gained from the previous stage, a conceptual framework of successful factors for effective inter-organizational knowledge sharing has been proposed. In the third phase, the proposed framework has been developed and finalized towards its maturity.Findings: – Based on the literature, the authors have developed a framework for understanding factors which influence inter-organizational knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing among organizations appears theoretically sound, but it is a difficult task due to some complexities.Research limitations/implications: – This paper attempts to set a theoretical framework for inter-organizational knowledge sharing as a foundation to address the gap in current literature though it does not claim to be comprehensive.Originality/value: – A few attempts have been made to investigate success factors for inter-organizational knowledge sharing empirically or even theoretically, but this is the first of its kind that provides a theoretical framework to arrange success factors for the knowledge sharing based on inter-organizational collaborations. It serves as a useful starting point for those interested in knowledge management (KM). So it can serve as a roadmap of significant knowledge sharing research for researchers, designers and managers considering their options for fostering KM.

Purpose: The present paper aims to compare the awareness and ability of medical students in using the electronic resources of the Integrated Digital Library (IDL) portal of Iran.Design/methodology/approach: The current research involves a comparative applied survey. The survey was conducted through a structured questionnaire circulated among 300 medical students sampled from three major Iranian universities. A stratified random sampling method was used. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, average and so on) have been used to analyze the data using the Microsoft Excel software.Findings: The awareness and utilization level of students in the three universities were lower than the average and those who are not aware of the existence of the IDL portal used general search engines to meet their information needs. The respondents admitted that their lack of awareness about the IDL was their most significant problem. Among the investigated universities, students of Tehran University of Medical Science (TUMS) used the End Note, Elsevier, Thomson, Scopus and Proquest databases most. All the students expressed the effect of the IDL on the academic activities as much as 64 percent in Iran University of Medical Science (IUMS), 72 percent in Tehran University of Medical Science (TUMS) and 66 percent in Shahid Beheshti Medical University (SBMU). The mean scores for utilization of searching strategies were 2.43, 2.89 and 2.87, respectively, for IUMS, TUMS and SBMU.Originality/value: A few attempts have been made to investigate the awareness, use and research ability of students in universities but this is the first of its kind to compare universities within the Integrated Digital Library. The paper will be useful for those in decision‐making roles and provides insight for the people responsible for IT application. It is hoped that this paper will assist administrators of the university libraries in developing a more complete understanding of students' electronic information needs and barriers.

Objective. Aging is a growing public health concern for people, organizations, and governments. The current study was undertaken to provide insights into the global research output on geriatric nursing. Methods. A bibliometric study was implemented using the WoS database for the period from 1900 to 2020. Various tools and measures were used to analyze and visualized. Results. The search strategy found 4923 papers. The oldest paper was written by Beverly C. Andre in 1953. As team size increases, so does the number of citations. The USA was the active country and the highest number of coauthors. New York University was an active institution. Stig Karlsson was the most active author in Geriatric Nursing with 28 articles from Sweden, followed by Koen Milisen and Sandman, with 26 articles each from Sweden and Belgium. The most frequent words in this field were depression, malnutrition, education, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia. The latest research themes in this field were COVID‐19, interprofessional locomotive syndrome, emergency nursing, and public health. The most influential papers were specified. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society was the most active journal. Conclusions. Geriatric nursing is a rooted field and has received special attention in the last decade. Policymakers, especially in developing countries, should pay attention to geriatric nursing as a specialty of nursing to solve aging issues they would face considering the increasing elderly population.

Background: The present review aimed to systematically identify and classify barriers and facilitators of conducting research with a team science approach. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest databases were searched for primary research studies conducted using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Studies examining barriers and facilitators of research with a team science approach were included in search. Two independent reviewers screened the texts, extracted and coded the data. Quality assessment was performed for all 35 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators were categorized within Human, Organization, and Technology model. Results: A total of 35 studies from 9,381 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 42 barriers and 148 facilitators were identified. Human barriers were characteristics of the researchers, teaming skills, and time. We consider Human facilitators across nine sub-themes as follows: characteristics of the researchers, roles, goals, communication, trust, conflict, disciplinary distances, academic rank, and collaboration experience. The barriers related to organization were institutional policies, team science integration, and funding. Organizational facilitators were as follows: team science skills training, institutional policies, and evaluation. Facilitators in the field of technology included virtual readiness and data management, and the technology barriers were complexity of techniques and privacy issues. Conclusions: We identified major barriers and facilitators for conducting research with team science approach. The findings have important connotations for ongoing and future implementation of this intervention strategy in research. The analysis of this review provides evidence to inform policy-makers, funding providers, researchers, and students on the existing barriers and facilitators of team science research. Trial registration: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021278704).

? AIM: To determine and evaluate the features of highly cited articles (HCAs) in the ophthalmology category in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) from 1991 to 2020.? METHODS: The Web of Science Core Collection documents with at least 100 citations from their publication year until December 31, 2020, were evaluated as highly cited. The examined features were the distribution of yearly output and its average number of per publication, HCAs, authors, institutions, journals, and nations. The publication performance of nations and organizations was assessed using six publication indicators. The Y-index was employed to compare the research outputs of various authors.? RESULTS: Publications that had cited the most references were highly published in high-impact factor journals. The United States of America came out on top across all six publication indicators, and it was home to eight of the top 10 most productive institutions. The articles written by Breivik et al (2006) and Farrar et al (2001) were highly cited and had a significant impact in 2020. The authors had a higher number of highly cited articles published as corresponding authors than as first authors.? CONCLUSION: The findings of the present study highlight the current scope of global research in ophthalmology. The findings can help policy-makers and advisory groups of research centers to develop future policies. In addition, the findings can guide researchers in this field.

Background: Sharing research outputs with open science methods for different stakeholders causes better access to different studies to solve problems in diverse fields, which leads to equal access conditions to research resources, as well as greater scientific productivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perceive the concept of openness in research among Iranian health researchers.Methods: From the beginning of August to the middle of November 2021, twenty semi-structured interviews were held with Iranian health researchers from different fields using purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation. Data analysis was performed with thematic analysis using MAXQDA 20. Finally, seven main issues related to open science were identified.Results: Through analysis of the interviews, 235 primary codes and 173 main codes were extracted in 22 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into nine categories and three main themes. Analysis showed that openness in research was related to three main themes: researchers’ understanding of open science, the impact of open science on publication and sharing of research, concerns and reluctance to open research.Conclusion: The conditions of access to research output should be specified given the diversity of studies conducted in the field of health; issues like privacy as an important topic of access to data and information in the health system should also be specified. Our analysis indicated that the conditions of publication and sharing of research processes should be stated according to different scopes of health fields. The concept of open science was related to access to findings and other research items regardless of cost, political, social, or racial barriers, which could create collective wisdom in the development of knowledge. The process of publication and sharing of research related to open access applies to all types of outputs, conditions of access, increasing trust in research, creation of diverse publication paths, and broader participation of citizens in research. Open science practices should be promoted to increase the circulation and exploitation rates of knowledge while adjusting and respecting the limits of privacy, intellectual property and national security rights of countries.