Abstract

This study aims to analyse the accuracy and consistency of the document types of publications in Turkish Librarianship and Information World journals indexed in international bibliographic databases in the field of librarianship and information science in Türkiye. In this study, the accuracy and consistency analyses of publication document types were conducted using full texts, journal web pages, and records in international citation indexes (Web of Science and Scopus). In this study, a quantitative research approach was adopted, and the descriptive method was utilized. The findings indicated that the document types specified in the full texts of the publications in both journals exhibited inconsistencies with the journals’ web pages and the citation databases in which they were indexed. It has been determined that document types labelled differently from the full texts of publications in journals are predominantly Opinions and Letters to the Editor. These types are often erroneously labeled as Research Articles. In this regard, it is recommended that verification be carried out from multiple sources or original providers to ensure the accuracy of document types. However, including document types with equivalents in international databases in academic journal publication policies would significantly contribute to standardization and data integrity.

Keywords: Turkish Librarianship, Information World, document type accuracy, metadata management, bibliographic description, indexing

References

  1. Alır, G. (2008). e-Türkiye uygulamaları: Elektronik belge yönetimi ve üst veri [Doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
  2. Ayık, K. ve Yılmaz, M. (2021). Catagloging consistency in acces point: Academic libraries of Turkey. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 59(4), 378-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1919267
  3. Bilgi Dünyası Dergi Politikası. (2020). https://bd.org.tr/public/Bilgi-Dunyasi-Dergi-Politikasi.pdf
  4. Bitri, E. ve Keseroğlu, H. S. (2015). Türk Kütüphaneciliği ve Bilgi Dünyası dergilerinin özlerine eleştirel bir bakış. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 29(1), 241-257.
  5. Campanario, J. M., Carretero, J., Marangon, V., Molina, A. ve Ros, G. (2011). Effect on the journal impact factor of the number and document type of citing records: A wide-scale study. Scientometrics, 87, 75-84. DOI 10.1007/s11192-010-0333-2
  6. Çakmak, T. ve Gülbay, H. (2024). Kütüphane kataloglarında basılı süreli yayınlara konusal erişim: 13 Dergiye atanan konu başlıklarına yönelik bir analiz. Bilgi Yönetimi, 7(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1449660
  7. Çelik, S. ve Çuhadar, S. (2024). Kurumsal akademik arşivlerde üst veri kalitesi üzerine değerlendirme. B. S. Sarıçoban (Ed.), K. Binici (Yay. Haz.), II. Uluslararası Gelenekten Geleceğe Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Sempozyumu: Kalkınmada Veri, Bilgi, Bilişim ve Yönetişim (26-28 Ekim 2023, Çankırı) içinde (ss. 191-203). İstanbul: İdeal Kültür Akademi.
  8. Çolak, F. (2024). Türkiye’de araştırma üniversitelerinin kurumsal akademik arşivlerinde üst veri kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
  9. De Keyser, P. (2012). Automatic indexing versus manual indexing. In D. Bawden ve L. Robinson (Ed.), Indexing (ss. 39–63). Chandos Publishing. DOI:10.1016/b978-1-84334-292-2.50002-7
  10. Donner, P. (2015). Document type assignment accuracy in citation index data sources. Salah, A.A., Y. Tonta, A.A. Akdag Salah, C. Sugimoto, U. Al (Ed.). Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference içinde (s.1271-272). Boğaziçi University Prinhouse.
  11. Donner, P. (2017). Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science. Scientometrics, 113, 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2483-y
  12. El Abdouni Khayari, R., Best, M. ve Lehmann, A. (2005). Impact of document types on the performance of caching algorithms in WWW Proxies: A trace driven simulation study. 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA’05), 737-742. https://doi.org/10.1109/AINA.2005.208
  13. Etik İlkeler ve Yayın Politikası. (2024). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tk/policy
  14. Harzing, A. W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences? Scientometrics, 94(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1
  15. Haupka, N., Culbert, J. H., Schniedermann, A., Jahn, N. ve Mayr, P. (2024). Analysis of the publication and document types in OpenAlex, Web of Science, Scopus, Pubmed and Semantic Scholar. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15154.
  16. Kan Yeung, A. W. (2021). Document type assignment by Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and publishers to “Top 100” papers. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 26(3), 97-103. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol26no3.5
  17. Kozak, N. (2002). Türk Kütüphaneciliği Dergisinin Türkiye’de yayınlanan akademik dergiler içerisindeki yeri üzerine bir inceleme. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 16(3), 237-247. http://www.tk.org.tr/index.php/TK/article/view/917/910
  18. Lindemann, C. ve Waldhorst, O. P. (2002). Evaluating the impact of different document types on the performance of web cache replacement schemes. Proceedings International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks içinde (ss. 717-726). https://doi.org/10.1109/DSN.2002.1029017
  19. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown—citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145–154. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.007
  20. Mokhnacheva, Y. V. (2023). Document types indexed in WoS and Scopus: Similarities, differences, and their significance in the analysis of publication activity. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 50(1), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688223010033
  21. Proescholdt, R. ve Schneider, J. (2020). Retracted papers with incorrect document type indexing in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/117915
  22. Robinson-Garcia, N., Vargas-Quesada, B., Torres-Salinas, D., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., ve Gorraiz, J. (2024). Errors of measurement in scientometrics: Classification schemes and document types in citation and publication rankings. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05159-0
  23. Sigogneau, A. (2000). An alaysis of document types published in journals related to physics: Proceeding papers recorded in the Science Citation Index database. Scientometrics, 47(3), 589-604. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005628218890
  24. Simons, N. ve Richardson, J. (2013). New content in digital repositories. The Changing Research Landscape. New Delhi: Chandos Publishing Quinn, A. M. (2023). Thinking beyond if you build it, they will come: Increasing submissions to campus institutional repositories. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 29(1), 97-115. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2022.2082990
  25. Taşkın, Z. (2014). Türk kütüphanecilik literatüründe yazar adı karmaşası. 1. Uluslararası Kütüphane ve Bilgibilim Felsefesi Sempozyumu: Etik: Kuram ve Uygulama, 3-5 Eylül 2014, Kastamonu içinde (s. 391-406). İstanbul: Hiperlink.
  26. Taşkın, Z. ve Çakmak, T. (2010). Başlangıcından bugüne Bilgi Dünyası Dergisi’nin bibliyometrik profili. Bilgi Dünyası, 11(2), 332-348. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2010.240
  27. Tok, A. (2022). Bilgi Yönetimi Dergisi’nin betimsel analizi. Bilgi ve Belge Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17, 61-82. https://doi.org/10.26650/bba.2022.17.1124394
  28. Tonta, Y. (2002). Türk Kütüphaneciliği dergisi, 1987-2001. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 16(3), 282-320. http://tk.org.tr/index.php/TK/article/view/929/922
  29. Tonta, Y. (2017). Türkiye’de yayımlanan ve Web of Science’ta dizinlenen dergilerle ilgili bir değerlendirme. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 31(4), 449-482. https://doi.org/10.24146/tkd.2017.21
  30. Tonta, Y. ve Al, U. (2007). Türkiye’nin bilimsel yayın haritası: Türkiye’de dergi yayıncılığı üzerine bibliyometrik bir araştırma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2007 TÜBİTAK projesi: SOBAG-105K088.
  31. Türk Kütüphaneciliği Editörler Kurulu. (2019). Türk Kütüphaneciliğinde Yeni Kayıplar ve Yeni Gelişmeler. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 33(2), 85-89.
  32. Türk Kütüphaneciliği Yönetim Belgesi. (t.y.). http://www.tk.org.tr/belgeler/TK-Yonetim_Belgesi.pdf
  33. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring science. H. F. Moed, W. Glanzel, ve U. Schmoch (Ed.), Hanbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research içinde (ss. 19-50). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-2755-9
  34. Visser, M., van Eck, N. J., ve Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112
  35. Wilbanks, B. A., Berner, E. S., Alexander, G. L., Azuero, A., Patrician, P. A., ve Moss, J. A. (2018). The effect of data-entry template design and anesthesia provider workload on documentation accuracy, documentation efficiency, and user-satisfaction. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 118, 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.07.006
  36. Yalçınkaya, B. (2014). e-Devlet üstveri standardının oluşturulması ve Türkiye için modellenmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
  37. Yeung, A. W. K. (2021). Document type assignment by Web of Science, Sopus, PubMed, and publishers to “The 100” papers. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 26(3), 97-103. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol26no3.5
  38. Zencir, M. B. ve Öztürk, T. (2022). Türkiye’de kütüphanecilik ve bilgibilim alanında araştırma-uygulama boşluğu: Makaleler kapsamında yazarlık ve iş birliğinin bir analizi. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 36(4), 451-471. https://doi.org/10.24146/tk.1144164

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2025 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

Çakmak, T., & Kaya, S. (2025). Document Type Confusion: An Evaluation of Publications in Turkish Librarianship and Information World Journals. Information World, 26(1), 81-106. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2025.815