Abstract

This study examines Turkey’s contributions to information science and assesses the visibility of Turkey-addressed information science articles in the literature in terms of their citations. In other words, Turkey’s quantitative contributions to the information science literature are compared through citations, taking peer articles into account. The primary dataset used in the research was obtained through Web of Science and includes 600 Turkey-addressed information science articles. The findings of the study reveal that Turkey-addressed information science articles are produced by researchers from various disciplines. The conducted study can be seen as an attempt to establish a metric based on the provided data. Despite having many aspects open to criticism, the proposed metric allows each discipline to gauge its own effectiveness and position within its field based on the number of citations received compared to its peers. The conceptual background of the research, which relies on a previously completed postgraduate thesis, defines “peer articles” as articles published in the same issue of a journal, while “peer article citation impact” categorizes an article based on the number of citations it receives compared to its peers. To bring a different perspective on the subject and to contribute to the discussions to be made, especially in the context of the research evaluation literature, which is thought to have developed rapidly but not in a healthy way in Turkey recently, is among the targets of this study.

Keywords: Peer article citation impact, research evaluation, information science articles, bibliometrics, research productivity, metrics

References

  1. Aksnes, D.W. ve Sivertsen, G. (2023). Global trends in international research collaboration, 1980-2021. Journal of Data and Information Science, 8(2), 26-42. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2023-0015
  2. Al, U. (2009). Türkiye’nin göreli atıf etkisi üzerine bilimetrik bir çalışma. Bilgi Dünyası, 10(2), 231-244.
  3. Al, U. ve Afzali, M. (2006). İran ve Türkiye’nin dünya bilgibilim literatürüne katkıları: Karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma. Bilgi Dünyası, 7(2), 181-201.
  4. Al, U. ve Soydal, İ. (2017). Publication lag and early view effects in information science journals. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(2), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2016-0200
  5. Al, U. ve Soydal, İ. (2010). Bilgibilim alanında kendine atıf üzerine bir çalışma. Bilgi Dünyası, 11(2), 349-364.
  6. Arocena, R., Göransson, B. ve Sutz, J. (2019). Towards making research evaluation more compatible with developmental goals. Science and Public Policy, 46(2), 210-218. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy051
  7. Bihari, A., Tripathi, S. ve Deepak, A. (2023). A review on h-index and its alternative indices. Journal of Information Science, 49(3), 624-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014478
  8. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C. ve Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 93-102. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00084
  9. Braun, T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1987). 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.
  10. Braun, T., Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (1985). Scientometric indicators: a 32-century comparative evaluation of publishing performance and citation impact. World Scientific Publishing.
  11. Chang, Y-W., Huang, M-H. ve Lin, C-W. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2071-2087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1762-8
  12. Crespo, J.A., Li, Y. ve Ruiz–Castillo, J. (2013). The measurement of the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices across scientific fields. PLOS ONE, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058727
  13. CiTO. (2018). The citation typing ontology. https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html
  14. Doğan, G. (2017). Akademik performans odaklı uluslararası üniversite sıralama sistemlerinin genel sıralamalarına ve ölçütlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  15. Egghe, L. ve Ravichandra Rao, I.K. (1992). Citation age data and the obsolescence function: Fits and explanations. Information Processing & Management, 28(2), 201-217.
  16. Kiesslich, T., Beyreis, M., Zimmermann, G. ve Traweger, A. (2021). Citation inequality and the Journal Impact Factor: median, mean, (does it) matter? Scientometrics, 126(2), 1249-1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03812-y
  17. Köksal, M.S. (2022). Türkiye adresli bilgibilim makalelerinin atıf etkisi. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  18. Levitt, J.M. (2015). What is the optimal number of researchers for social science research? Scientometrics, 102(1), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1441-1
  19. Ma, L. (2021). The steering effects of citations and metrics. Journal of Documentation, 77(2), 420-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2020-0093
  20. Muller, J.Z. (2019). Sayıların diktatörlüğü: Başarıyı rakamlarla ölçme saplantısı ve çözüm yolları. (Çev. Ayça Kamacıoğlu). İstanbul: The Kitap.
  21. Pandita, R., Singh, S. ve Baidwan, K. (2022). India’s research contribution to world LIS literature: a study 2011-20. Collection and Curation, 41(4), 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-02-2021-0005
  22. ProQuest. (2023). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/pqdtglobal
  23. Schryvers, P. (2020). Bad data: Why we measure the wrong things and often miss the metrics that matter. Lanham: Prometheus Books.
  24. Schubert, A. ve Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5-6), 281-291.
  25. Siddique, N., Rehman, S.U., Ahmad, S., Abbas, A. ve Khan, M.A. (2023). Library and information science research in the Arab World: a bibliometric analysis 1951-2021. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 72(1/2), 138-159. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2021-0103
  26. Siddique, N., Rehman, S.U., Khan, M.A. ve Altaf, A. (2021). Library and information science research in Pakistan: A bibliometric analysis, 1957-2018. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(1), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620921930
  27. TR Dizin. (2023). TR Dizin. https://trdizin.gov.tr/
  28. Tonta, Y. ve Akbulut, M. (2021). Uluslararası dergilerde yayımlanan Türkiye adresli makalelerin atıf etkisini artıran faktörler. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 35(3), 388-409. https://doi.org/10.24146/tk.933159
  29. Tonta, Y. ve Akbulut, M. (2020, 23 Eylül). Performansa dayalı akademik teşvik sistemleri üzerine. Sarkaç. https://sarkac.org/2020/09/performansa-dayali-akademik-tesvik-sistemleri-uzerine/
  30. Türk Dil Kurumu. (2022). Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
  31. Üniversitelerarası Kurul Başkanlığı. (2023). Doçentlik başvuru şartlarının değişikliğine ilişkin duyuru. https://www.uak.gov.tr/Sayfalar/docentlik-duyuru-detay.aspx?did=34
  32. van Raan, A.F.J. (2014). Advances in bibliometric analysis: Research performance assessment and science mapping. W. Blockmans, L. Engwall, D. Weaire (Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance içinde s. 17-28. London: Portland Press.
  33. Waltman, L. ve van Eck, N. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406-415. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21678
  34. Wijewickrema, M. (2023). A bibliometric study on library and information science and information systems literature during 2010-2019. Library Hi Tech, 41(2), 595-621. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2021-0198
  35. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi. (2023). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
  36. Zhao, D. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84(2), 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0191-y
  37. Zhao, Z., Pan, X. ve Hua, W. (2021). Comparative analysis of the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of top ranked library and information science schools in China and the United States. Scientometrics, 126(2), 931-950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03796-9

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2023 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

Köksal, M. S., & Al, U. (2023). Peer Article Citation Impact: An Essay on Turkey-Addressed Information Science Articles. Information World, 24(2), 140-164. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2023.726