Tehran University of Medical Sciences Iranian Journal of Public Health 2251-6085 48 4 2019 04 16 621 631 Wenwen WU School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China AND School of Public Health and Management, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan 442000, Hubei Province, China Yaofei XIE School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China Xiangxiang LIU School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China Yaohua GU School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China Yuting ZHANG School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China Xinlong TU School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China Xiaodong TAN School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China 2019 04 16 Background: Studies related to the prevention and control of myopia in adolescents have increased rapidly, but only a few have measured the levels of scientific collaboration among authors, institutions and countries in this field. Thus, in this study, we aimed to reveal the status and levels of scientific collaboration in this field. Methods: The research population included all published papers in the field of adolescent myopia prevention and control indexed in the Web of Science databases from 1997-2016. The co-authorship networks were drawn using SATI (Statistical Analysis Toolkit for Informetrics), Ucinet and VOS viewer (Visualisation of Similarities viewer). Active authors and some measures of co-author network, including degree centrality, closeness, betweenness, density and diameter, were also assessed. Results: Overall, 610 records were obtained, and a number of publications developed through an increase in different collaboration types, with cooperation among authors and institutions as the most apparent ones. The top ten active authors and institutions were identified. The density of cooperative networks of the top 70 authors and the first 69 institutions were 0.043 and 0.011, respectively, with corresponding diameters of five and six, respectively. Seven distinct clusters formed the cooperation network among 38 countries. The top three clusters were centered in China, the United States and Australia, also identified as the most productive countries. Conclusion: The flow of information is slow and the collaboration among authors and institutions in the network are not close enough. Thus, multiple collaboration types should be encouraged in this field, especially among countries.     https://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/view/16852 https://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/download/16852/6349