Volume 27, Issue 3 (11-2024)                   jha 2024, 27(3): 70-86 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sepehr R, Shekofteh M, Shahbodaghi A, Jambarsang S. The Presence of universities in the Shanghai ranking system in the fields of medicine and related sciences and its relationship with countries R&D expenditure: with emphasis on Iranian universities. jha 2024; 27 (3) :70-86
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4619-en.html
The Presence of universities in the Shanghai ranking system in the fields of medicine and related sciences and its relationship with countries R&D expenditure: with emphasis on Iranian universities
Romina Sepehr1 , Maryam Shekofteh2 , Azam Shahbodaghi3 , Sara Jambarsang4
1- School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Medical library and Information Science, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Medical library and Information Science, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. , shekoftehm@gmail.com
3- Department of Medical library and Information Science, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
4- Health Data Modeling Research Center, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Keywords: University ranking systems, Shanghai ranking, Medical universities, Research and development expenditure, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 673 kb]   (145 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (375 Views)
Full-Text:   (31 Views)
  Introduction
Countries, and universities, as centers of knowledge production, play a fundamental role in this process. National and international ranking systems have been developed to enhance the quality of education and research and have increased competition among universities [1,2]. One of the most reputable of these systems is the Shanghai ranking (ARWU), which annually evaluates the top 1,000 universities worldwide using specific indicators [3,4]. Participation in these rankings is important for universities, governments, and policymakers. However, there has been limited in-depth examination of the standing of universities in the field of medicine and related sciences within such rankings. Moreover, some studies have shown that investment in research and development (R&D) may correlate with a country’s improved scientific standing [5–8], though this relationship requires further investigation. Accordingly, the present study investigates the representation of countries, peticularly Iran in the Shanghai ranking in the fields of medicine and related sciences, and examines its relationship with R&D expenditure. The findings may inform educational, research, and budgeting policies.

Methods
This applied research employed a descriptive survey and correlational research design. The statistical population included all universities listed under the medical and related sciences categories in 2022 Shanghai ranking. No sampling was counducted, as all elligible universities were included. Data were collected using a checklist, and the extracted data were entered into Excel checklists for further analysis. Information was extracted from the official Shanghai ranking website [9] in 2022, focusing on the subfields of medical sciences, including clinical medicine, public health, dentistry and oral sciences, nursing, medical technology, and pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. In each subfield, universities, countries, and their rankings were identified and recorded.
R&D expenditure data were obtained from the OECD database (https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm). The average R&D expenditure from 2015 to 2020 was calculated in million USD and as a percentage of GDP. This timeframe was selected due to incomplete data in some years, and the average was considered reliable given the minimal year-to-year variations. Data accuracy was verified by cross-referecing with World Bank data (https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficient in SPSS software.

Results
An analysis of the number of universities and countries included in the Shanghai Ranking shows that 867 universities from 83 countries were listed in 2022 (duplicate entries of countries and universities in different fields were counted only once). In total, there are six categories related to medicine and allied sciences in the Shanghai Ranking, with the highest country diversity seen in the field of clinical medicine, featuring 74 countries and 499 universities. In contrast, the field of nursing included only 300 universities from 35 countries in the ranking (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of countries and universities present in the Shanghai ranking in medical and allied health fields
Medical and allied health fields in the Shanghai Ranking Number of countries Number of universities* Number of Iranian universities
Clinical medicine 74 499 10
Public health 70 500 9
Dentistry and oral sciences 43 300 0
Nursing 35 300 5
Medical technology 42 400 0
Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences 52 500 3
Total 83 867
28
*This number of universities represents the total count, including Iranian universities.
Table 2 presents the countries with the highest number of universities listed in the Shanghai ranking in the fields of medicine and allied sciences. Only countries with at least six universities in this ranking are reported. The United States ranks first in all fields in terms of the number of listed universities. Iran is represented in two subfields: clinical medicine (10 universities) and public health (9 universities). As shown in Table 3, Iran has a total of 28 appearances in the Shanghai ranking across medical and related fields. However, after removing duplicate entries, only 13 distinct Iranian universities wer identified. The highest representation is in clinical medicine (10 universities), followed by public health (9 universities), nursing (5 universities), and pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences (4 universities).
Table 2. Frequency of countries with at least six universities in the Shanghai academic ranking in the fields of medicine and allied science
Rank Clinical medicine Public health Dentistry and oral sciences Nursing Medical technology Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences
Country No. of Univ. % Country No. of Univ. % Country No. of Univ. % Country No. of Univ. % Country No. of Univ. % Country No. of Univ. %
1 USA 112 22.44 USA 123 24.60 USA 53 17.67 USA 82 27.33 USA 96 24 USA 99 19.80
2 UK 42 8.42 UK 45 9 Germany 28 9.33 Australia 33 11 China 47 11.75 China 73 14.60
3 Germany 33 6.61 China 28 5.60 Brazil 26 8.67 UK 26 8.67 Germany 33 8.25 UK 36 7.20
4 Italy 29 5.81 Germany 25 5 Japan 22 7.33 Sweden 19 6.33 Italy 27 6.75 Italy 34 6.80
5 Australia 25 5.01 Australia 24 4.80 Italy 21 7 Canada 15 5.00 UK 22 5.50 Germany 31 6.20
6 France 24 4.81 Canada 21 4.20 China 20 6.67 China 12 4 South Korea 20 5 Australia 20 4
7 Canada 17 3.41 Italy 18 3.60 UK 15 5 Taiwan 12 4 France 19 4.75 Spain 18 3.60
8 China 13 2.61 France 17 3.40 South Korea 13 4.33 Norway 12 4 Canada 15 3.75 France 17 3.40
9 Spain 12 2.40 Spain 16 3.20 Spain 8 2.67 South Korea 11 3.67 Japan 11 2.75 Canada 15 3
10 Brazil 11 2.20 Sweden 10 2.00 Canada 8 2.67 Spain 7 2.33 Netherlands 11 2.75 Egypt 13 2.60
11 Iran 10 2 Netherlands 10 2 Taiwan 7 2.33 Ireland 7 2.33 Australia 10 2.50 South Korea 11 2.20
12 Japan 10 2 Iran 9 1.80 Australia 6 2 Netherlands 7 2.33 Sweden 8 2 Taiwan 9 1.80
13 Sweden 8 1.60 Belgium 8 1.60 Sweden 6 2 Italy 6 2 Switzerland 8 2 Netherlands 9 1.80
14 Netherlands 8 1.60 South Africa 7 1.40 Netherlands 6 2 – – – Belgium 7 1.75 Switzerland 8 1.60
15 Belgium 7 1.40 Brazil 6 1.20 – – – – – – Spain 6 1.50 Brazil 7 1.40
16 Switzerland 7 1.40 Japan 6 1.20 – – – – – – Finland 6 1.50 Belgium 7 1.40
17 Ireland 6 1.20 Switzerland 6 1.20 – – – – – – – – – Sweden 7 1.40
18 Finland 6 1.20 Finland 6 1.20 – – – – – – – – – Austria 6 1.20
19 South Korea 6 1.20 – – – – – – – – – – – – Portugal 6 1.20
20 Poland 6 1.20 – – – – – – – – – – – – Saudi Arabia 6 1.20
21 India 6 1.20 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Total 74 499 100 70 500 100 43 300 100 35 300 100 42 400 100 52 500 100
All of these universities are ranked beyoun the top 200 (Table 3). Most of these institutions operate under the Ministry of Health. However, the University of Tehran and Tarbiat Modares University, although overseen by the Ministry of Science, are included in the rankings due to their medical science-related programs.
Table 4 shows the top ten countries with the highest number of universities in the Shanghai ranking in the fields of medicine and allied sciences in 2022. The United States leads with 565 universities, followed by China (193) and the United Kingdom (186). After removing duplicate entries, these three countries still rank highest with 160, 79, and 58 distinct universities, respectively. Iran is not among the top countries in terms of the number of universities in these fields.
R&D expenditure was analyzed in two ways: the average amount in million USD and as a percentage of GDP. According to Table 5, the United States, China, and Japan had the highest average R&D spending in terms of million dollars, while Israel, South Korea, and Sweden allocated the highest percentage of GDP to R&D. It is worth noting that data related to Iran were not available in the OECD database.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between the number of a country's universities in the Shanghai ranking and its average R&D expenditure, both in USD and as a percentage of GDP. The analysis showed a significant positive correlation. A stronger correlation was observed between the number of universities and R&D expenditure in USD (r = 0.603), compared to the correlation with R&D as a percentage of GDP (r = 0.284) (Table 6).
 
Table 3. Iranian universities and their rankings in the Shanghai ranking in the fields of medical and health sciences
Ranking Clinical medicine Public health Nursing Pharmacy and pharmaceutical Sciences
201–300 Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences Isfahan University of Medical Sciences —
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences Mashhad University of Medical Sciences Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences —
Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tabriz University of Medical Sciences —
— — Tarbiat Modares University —
— — Tehran University of Medical Sciences —
301–400 Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences Iran University of Medical Sciences — Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Iran University of Medical Sciences Kerman University of Medical Sciences — Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
Tehran University of Medical Sciences Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences — Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
— Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences — University of Tehran
401–500 Mashhad University of Medical Sciences Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences — —
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Shiraz University of Medical Sciences — —
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences — — —
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences — — —

Table 4. The ten countries with the highest number of universities in the fields of medicine and allied health sciences in the Shanghai academic ranking system
Rank Country (before removing duplicates) Number of universities Country (after removing duplicates) Number of universities
1 USA 565 USA 160
2 China 193 China 79
3 United Kingdom 186 United Kingdom 58
4 Germany 153 Italy 41
5 Italy 135 Germany 40
6 Australia 118 Australia 36
7 Canada 91 Japan 34
8 France 82 Brazil 30
9 Spain 67 France 29
10 Brazil and Japan 52 Spain 27

Table 5. R&D Expenditure in Countries of Universities Included in the Shanghai Academic Ranking System
Rank Country Avg. R&D Expenditure
(Million USD)		 Country Avg. R&D Expenditure
 (% of GDP)
1 United States 578,189.23 Israel 4.80
2 China 456,567.73 South Korea 4.36
3 Japan 168,585.85 Sweden 3.33
4 Germany 123,523.91 Taiwan 3.29
5 South Korea 90,494.38 Japan 3.20
6 France 62,231.31 Austria 3.11
7 United Kingdom 48,644.58 Switzerland 3.07
8 Taiwan 39,054.18 Germany 3.05
9 Russia 38,971.23 United States 3.03
10 Italy 32,031.13 Denmark 2.98

Table 6. Correlation between number of universities in Shanghai ranking and average r&d expenditure in medical and health sciences fields
Variables Correlation coefficient (r) P-value
Number of universities and average R&D expenditure in USD 0.603 ≤ 0.0001
Number of universities and average % of R&D expenditure relative to GDP 0.284 ≤ 0.0001

Discussion
International university ranking systems, such as the Shanghai ranking system, play a significant role in evaluating and improving the quality of universities and fostering global academic competition [10,11]. This study examined the presence of countries in the medical and health sciences category od the Shanghai ranking system, with an emphasis on Iran's status.
The findings indicated that Shanghai ranking included only six medical-related subject areas: clinical medicine, public health, dentistry and oral sciences, nursing, medical technology, and pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. This limited scope does not reflect the full diversity of medical disciplines, highlighting the need to include more specialized subject areas in future rankings. In 2022, the United States, China, and the United Kingdom had the highest number of universities represented in these fields. Iran was represented by 13 universities in the Shanghai ranking. Specifically, Baghiyatollah, Kermanshah, and Mazandaran Universities of Medical Sciences were ranked in clinical medicine; Kermanshah, Mashhad, and Tehran Universities of Medical Sciences were ranled in public health; Isfahan, Shahid Beheshti, Tabriz, and Tehran Universities of Medical Sciences, along with Tarbiat Modares University, were listed in nursing (201–300); and Tehran, Mashhad, and Tabriz Universities of Medical Sciences, as well as the University of Tehran, were ranked in pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences (301–400).
A study by Norouzi Chakli and Madadi [7] showed that the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom had the highest number of universities in international rankings such as QS, Times, and Shanghai. Comparison with recent data from the present study indicates that the number of ranked universities in the U.S., China, the U.K., and Germany has increased, with China surpassing the U.K. to take second place. Several studies, including those by Moradian [12], Vernon [13], Bokhardenia [14], and Posser and Marginson [15], confirm that both the quantity and quality of research outputs improve universities' standing in global rankings. This study also found a positive and significant correlation between countries’ R&D investment and the number of their universities included in the Shanghai ranking system.
Findings from Norouzi Chakli and Madadi [7] also support this trend, showing that countries with higher R&D investments tend to perform better in academic rankings. Other researchers, such as Van Raan [16], have highlighted the key roles of funding, skilled human resources, internationalization, and publication in reputable journals.
In addition to these factors, open access to data and the absence of information gaps [6,11,17,18] are important for enhancing universities’ global standings. Conversely, in developing countries such as Iran, information and digital gaps can pose significant obstacles to improving their rankings in international systems.

Limitation
The most recent available data on R&D expenditure from OECD and World Bank databases were from 2020, with no data available for 2021 and 2022. Therefore, the study utilized average data from 2015 to 2020. Given the relatively stable patern of R&D expenditure over the years, this limitation likely did not impact the study's results. Additionally, Iran’s data were not available in the databases. However, this did not affect the study, as the correlation between the number of universities in the Shanghai ranking and R&D expenditure was analyzed based on the available data. Furthermore, the Shanghai ranking website reports only the total scores of universities and does not disaggregate them by specific indicators, making it impossible to analyze the relationship between R&D spending and individual ranking metrics.

Conclusion
According to the Shanghai ranking, the United States, China, and the United Kingdom have the highest number of universities in the fields of medical and allied sciences. Additionally, the U.S., China, and Japan reported the highest R&D expenditures in absolute dollar terms, while Israeli, South Korea, and Sweden allocated the highest percentages of their GDP to R&D. A significant positive correlation was observed between the number of universities listed in the ranking and R&D expenditure; with a stronger correlation for absolute spending compared to a percent of GDP. To improve their standing in this ranking system, countries should increase investment in research and development and prioterize the quality and international collaboration of their universities.

Declerations
Ethical considerations: This article is based on a research project that was approved with the registration number 43009271 and ethical code IR.SBMU.RETECH.REC.1402.855 by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences.
Funding: This research was financially supported by the School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Authors' contributions: R.S: Study design, data collection, data analysis, writing-original draft, final approval; M.S: Study design, Project administration, writing - review & editing, final approval (corresponding author); A.S: Study design, writing - review & editing, final approval; S.JS: Data analysis. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Consent for publication: Not applicable.
AI deceleration: The English text of this article was edited using ChatGPT, a tool developed by OpenAI. The authors have carefully reviewed and approved all the content edited by this tool.
Data availability: Access to the research data is available upon reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author via email.
Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude to all the people who collaborated in this research.
 
  
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Medical Librarianship and Information Science
Received: 2025/02/5 | Accepted: 2025/05/23 | Published: 2025/06/11
References
1. Altaha R, Jabari N, Niaz Azari K. Identification of ranking indexes in Iran's medical sciences universities. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences. 2019;26(1):13-23. [In Persian] Available from: https://jsums.medsab.ac.ir/article_1155.html?lang=en
2. Rigi A, Azizi N, Pourghaz AW. A critical analysis of extracurricular factors affecting the global ranking of Iranian universities. Journal of Research in Educational Systems. 2020;14(49):91-109 [In Persian] Available from: http://www.jiera.ir/article_108275.html
3. Khani Zad R, Montazer GA. A comparative evaluation of world university ranking systems. Science and Technology Policy. 2017;9(3):31-43 [In Persian] Available from: http://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_12985.html
4. Moustafa K. University rankings: time to reconsider. BioImpacts. 2025(15):30290. doi: 10.34172/bi.2024.30290 [DOI:10.34172/bi.2024.30290]
5. Ramezani SG, Ursin J. University rankings in Nordic higher education: a scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2024;68(1):6-21. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2023.2263770 [DOI:10.1080/00313831.2023.2263770]
6. Vasilevska M. Towards development of a new higher education institution ranking model that establishes a meaningful linkage between higher education and economic development. KNOWLEDGE: International Journal. 2024 ;62(2):205-10. Available from: https://ojs.ikm.mk/index.php/kij/article/view/6580
7. Topilovich MA. Assessment of the impact of influencing factors in ensuring the competitiveness of graduates in higher education institutions. World of Scientific news in Science International Journal. 2024;2(2):79-102 Available from: https://worldofresearch.ru/index.php/wsjc/article/view/198
8. Altakhaineh ARM, Zibin A. A new perspective on university ranking methods worldwide and in the Arab region: facts and suggestions. Quality in Higher Education. 2021;27(3):282-305 doi: 10.1080/13538322.2021.1937819 [DOI:10.1080/13538322.2021.1937819]
9. Wildavsky B. The great brain race: how global universities are reshaping the world. 1st ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012. [DOI:10.1515/9781400842001]
10. Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Academic ranking of world universities: methodology. 2022. Available from: http://www.shanghairanking.com/methodology/arwu/2022
11. Sani'ee N. Futures study of the research performance evaluation using scenario approach [PhD thesis]. [Tehran]: Iran University of Medical Sciences; 2022. [In Persian]
12. Herrera-Viedma E, Arroyo-Machado W, Torres-Salinas D. Losing objectivity: the questionable use of surveys in the global ranking of academic subjects. Quantitative Science Studies. 2024;5(2):484-486. doi: 10.1162/qss_c_00289 [DOI:10.1162/qss_c_00289]
13. The list of foreign universities approved by the Ministry of Health was announced [Internet]. Tehran: Ministry of Health and Medical Education; 2021 Available from: https://edd.behdasht.gov.ir/uploads/178/doc/UnivMotabar_20212022.pdf
14. Shahjahan RA, Baizhanov S. Global university rankings and geopolitics of knowledge. In: Tierney R, Rizvi F, Ercikan K, Smith G, editors. International Encyclopedia of Education. 4th ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2023. p. 261-71. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.08042-8]
15. Fred YY. A quantitative relationship between per capita GDP and scientometric criteria. Scientometrics. 2007;71:407-13. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1678-z [DOI:10.1007/s11192-007-1678-z]
16. Rezapour A, Sardareh M, Ghaffarzadeh A, Rostampour M, Nouri M, Dadkhah H, et al. Developing the indicators for assessing entrepreneurship in Iranian universities of medical sciences. Journal of Health Administration. 2024;26(4):85-101 doi: 10.22034/26.4.85
17. Noroozi Chakoli A, Madadi Z. Gross domestic expenditure on R&D indicators and scientific ranking: do countries that better spend on research and development have better scientific rankings? Research on Information Science and Public Libraries. 2015;21(1):177-91. [In Persian]. Available from: https://publij.ir/article-1-1172-fa.html
18. Calderon A. The geopolitics of university rankings not all regions and university networks stand equal. In: Hazelkorn E, Mihut G, editors. Research handbook on university rankings: theory, methodology, influence and impact. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2021. p. 382-98. [DOI:10.4337/9781788974981.00040]
19. Gross domestic spending on R&D (Indicator) [Internet]. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2021 Available from: https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm
20. OECD. OECD factbook 2013: economic, environmental and social statistics [Internet]. Paris: OECD; 2012. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2013/01/oecd-factbook-2013_g1g221cf.html
21. World development indicators databank [Internet]. Washington: The World Bank; 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 6]. Available from: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#
22. Matlis G, Dimokas N, Karvelis P. Unveiling university groupings: a clustering analysis for academic rankings. Data. 2024;9(5):67. [DOI:10.3390/data9050067]
23. Wu Q, Termizi Borhan M. Sustainable development of Chinese higher education through comparison of higher education indices. Frontiers in Education. 2024;9: 1340637.doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1340637 [DOI:10.3389/feduc.2024.1340637]
24. Bekhradnia B. International university rankings: for good or ill? [Internet]. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute; 2016 Dec 15. Report No.: 89. Available from: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2016/12/15/3734/
25. Pusser B, Marginson S. University rankings in critical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education. 2013;84(4):544-68. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2013.11777301 [DOI:10.1080/00221546.2013.11777301]
26. Zare MR, Vahdatzad MA, Owlia MS, Lotfi MM. The survey of university rankings: a critical approach. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education. 2015;17(65):95-132. [In Persian]. doi: 10.22047/ijee.2015.8014
27. Nourmohammadi HA, Safari F. Introduction the global rankings of universities and review criteria of this system. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Letters. 2013;3(2):71-86. [In Persian]. Available from: http://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1181.html
28. Moradian M, Erfanmanesh MA, Asnafi AR. Relationship between the performances of top world universities based on scientometric indicators and their position in ten international academic ranking systems. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management. 2018;3(4):23-42. [In Persian]. Available from: https://stim.qom.ac.ir/article_1042.html?lang=en
29. Vernon MM, Balas EA, Momani S. Are university rankings useful to improve research? a systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(3): e0193762. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193762 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0193762]
30. Williams R, de Rassenfosse G, Jensen P, Marginson S. The determinants of quality national higher education systems. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2013 ;35(6):599-611. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2013.854288 [DOI:10.1080/1360080X.2013.854288]
31. Benito M, Gil P, Romera R. Funding, is it key for standing out in the university rankings? Scientometrics. 2019 ;121(2):771-92. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03202-z [DOI:10.1007/s11192-019-03202-z]
32. Ebadi A, Schiffauerova A. How to boost scientific production? a statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors. Scientometrics. 2016;106:1093-116. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1825-x [DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1825-x]
33. Van Raan AFJ. Two-step competition process leads to quasi power-law income distributions: application to scientific publication and citation distributions. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2001;298(3-4):530-6. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4371(01)00254-0 [DOI:10.1016/S0378-4371(01)00254-0]
34. Zhao L, Cao B, Borghi E, Chatterji S, Garcia-Saiso S, Rashidian A, et al. Data gaps towards health development goals, 47 low- and middle-income countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2022;100(1):40-9. doi: 10.2471/BLT.21.286254 [DOI:10.2471/BLT.21.286254]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2025 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Health Administration

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb