Abstract

Turkey’s contribution to citation indexes has been increasing every year. This increase has become particularly visible with the inclusion of some of the Turkey addressed journals in the citation indexes. The expansion decision taken by the commercial company that owns citation indexes also plays a significant role in this increase. This study evaluates the relative citation impact of Turkey and includes various comparisons based on country and field of study data. The data used in this study is obtained from Essential Science Indicators. The aim of the study is to examine Turkey’s high and low relative citation impact areas and determine whether there is a change in relative citation impact in time. Our study also tries to expose Turkey’s position in terms of relative citation impact when compared with different countries. The findings indicate that engineering is the highest relative citation impact area in Turkey and plant and animal sciences is the lowest, and no significant changes are observed between the two in time. The United States of America preserves its indisputable leading position in all areas in the scientific world. Turkey, on the other hand, is yet to reach to a level, where it can compete with such countries as England, Germany, Canada and France.

Keywords: Relative citation impact, Scientometrics, Bibliometrics, Turkey adressed publications

References

  1. Al, U. (2008). Türkiye’nin bilimsel yayın politikası: Atıf dizinlerine dayalı bibliyometrik bir yaklaşım. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  2. Björneborn, L. (2004). Small-world link structures across an academic web space: A library and information science approach. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen.
  3. Braun, T. (1999). Bibliometric indicators for the evaluation of universities - intelligence from the quantitation of the scientific literature. Scientometrics, 45(3), 425-432.
  4. Braun. T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1987a). One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 107 countries 1978-1980. Scientometrics, 11(1-2), 9-15.
  5. Braun. T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1987b). One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in the life sciences and chemistry 1978-1980. Scientometrics, 11(3-4), 127-140.
  6. Braun. T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1987c). One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in physics and mathematics 1978-1980. Scientometrics, 12(1-2), 3-16.
  7. Braun. T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1988a). The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 100 countries 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 13(5-6), 181-188.
  8. Braun. T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1988b). The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in the life sciences and chemistry 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 14(1-2), 3-15.
  9. Braun. T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1988c). The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact in physics, engineering and mathematics 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 14(5-6), 365-382.
  10. Braun. T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1989). The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact. A collection of relational charts. 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 15(1-2), 13-20.
  11. Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications - the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143-155.
  12. Czajbók, E., Berhidi, A., Vasas, L. ve Schubert, A. (2007). Hirsch-index for countries based on Essential Science Indicators data. Scientometrics, 73(1), 91-117.
  13. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B. ve Schlemmer, B. (2004). A bibliometric approach to the role of author self citations in scientific communication. Scientometrics, 59(1), 63-77.
  14. Ingwersen, P. (2000). The international visibility and citation impact of Scandinavian research articles in selected social science fields: The decay of a myth. Scientometrics, 49(1), 39-61.
  15. Karasözen, B. ve Bayram, Ö. G. (2007). 1997-2006 Türkiye bilim göstergeleri analizi. 24 Temmuz 2008 tarihinde http://www.yok.gov.tr/bilimselgostergeler/bilimselanaliz.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  16. Katz, J. S. (2000). Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 27(1), 23-36.
  17. King, C. (2009). Despite slide in world share, U.S. impact still looks strong. 14 Haziran 2009 tarihinde http://sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/09janfebFea/ adresinden erişildi.
  18. Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Evaluation of research and evolution of science indicators. Current Science, 89(9), 1510-1517.
  19. May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275(5301), 793-796. 15 Haziran 2009 tarihinde http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/275/5301/793 adresinden erişildi.
  20. Persson, O., Luukkonen, T. ve Hälikkä, S. (2000). A bibliometric study of Finnish science. 15 Haziran 2009 tarihinde http://www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2000/wp48.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  21. SCI-Bytes. (2003). Science in the United States, 1998-2002. 14 Haziran 2009 tarihinde http://in-cites.com/research/2003/april_21_2003-2.html adresinden erişildi.
  22. Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing and Management, 28(1), 1-3.
  23. ULAKBİM. (2009). UBYT istatistikleri. 15 Haziran 2009 tarihinde http://www.ulakbim.gov.tr/cabim/ubyt/stats/index.uhtml adresinden erişildi.

License

Copyright (c) 2009 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Al, U. (2009). A Scientometric Study on Relative Citation Impact of Turkey. Information World, 10(2), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2009.277