, Volume 107, Issue 2, pp 569–592 | Cite as

Diffusion of nanotechnology knowledge in Turkey and its network structure

  • Hamid Darvish
  • Yaşar Tonta


This paper aims to assess the diffusion and adoption of nanotechnology knowledge within the Turkish scientific community using social network analysis and bibliometrics. We retrieved a total of 10,062 records of nanotechnology papers authored by Turkish researchers between 2000 and 2011 from Web of Science and divided the data set into two 6-year periods. We analyzed the most prolific and collaborative authors and universities on individual, institutional and international levels based on their network properties (e.g., centrality) as well as the nanotechnology research topics studied most often by the Turkish researchers. We used co-word analysis and mapping to identify the major nanotechnology research fields in Turkey on the basis of the co-occurrence of words in the titles of papers. We found that nanotechnology research and development in Turkey is on the rise and its diffusion and adoption have increased tremendously thanks to the Turkish government’s decision a decade ago identifying nanotechnology as a strategic field and providing constant support since then. Turkish researchers tend to collaborate within their own groups or universities and the overall connectedness of the network is thus low. Their publication and collaboration patterns conform to Lotka’s law. They work mainly on nanotechnology applications in Materials Sciences, Chemistry and Physics, among others. This is commensurate, more or less, with the global trends in nanotechnology research and development.


Country-level studies Mapping and visualization Social network analysis 



We thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments, which helped us improve the paper. Remaining errors are of course our own.


  1. Aydogan-Duda, N. (2012). Nanotechnology: A descriptive account. Making it to the forefront in Aydogan-Duda, N. (Ed). Nanotechnology: A developing country perspective (pp. 1–4). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Aydogan-Duda, N., & Şener, I. (2010). Entry barriers to the nanotechnology industry in Turkey. In N. Ekekwe (Ed.), Nanotechnology and microelectronics: Global diffusion, economics and policy (pp. 167–173). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabasi, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science Magazine, 286(5439), 509–512.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Börner, K., Sanyal, S., & Vespignani, A. (2007). Network science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 537–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bozkurt, A. (2015). Türkiye, 10 yıldır “en küçük” dünyanın farkında, artık büyük adımlar atması gerekiyor (Turkey is aware of the “smallest” world for 10 years, but it should take big steps). Bilişim: Aylık Bilişim Kültürü Dergisi, 43(172), 44–53. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from
  6. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Centrality. (2015). Retrieved, January 20, 2015, from
  9. Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. PNAS, 101(Suppl. 1), 5303–5310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, C. (2006) CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darvish, H. (2014). Assessing the diffusion of nanotechnology in Turkey: A social network analysis approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Hacettepe University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  13. Darvish, H. R., & Tonta, Y. (2015a). The diffusion of nanotechnology knowledge in Turkey. In A. A. Salah, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 29 June–4 July, 2015 (pp. 720–731). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
  14. Darvish, H. R., & Tonta, Y. (2015b). The network structure of nanotechnology research output of Turkey: A co-authorship and co-word analysis study. In A. A. Salah, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 29 June–4 July, 2015 (pp. 732–743). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
  15. Denkbaş, E. B. (2015). Nanoteknolojiye yapılacak yatırımlar, ülkelerin ekonomik gücünü yansıtabilecek bir parametre olacak (Investments in nanotechnology will become a parameter reflecting economic powers of countries). Bilişim: Aylık Bilim Kültürü Dergisi, 43(172), 78–87. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from
  16. Erkoç, Ş. (2007). Nanobilim ve Nanoteknoloji (nanoscience and nanotechnology). Ankara: ODTÜ Geliştirme Vakfı.Google Scholar
  17. Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
  18. Günay, D., & Günay, A. (2011). 1933’den günümüze Türk yükseköğretiminde niceliksel gelişmeler (Quantitative developments in Turkish higher education since 1933). Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(1), 1–22. doi: 10.5961/jhes.2011.001. Retrieved, December 1, 2015, from
  19. Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2008). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007). Global nanotechnology research literature overview. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 1733–1747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kostoff, R. N., Stump, J. A., Johnson, D., Murday, J. S., Lau, C. G. Y., & Tolls, W. M. (2006). The structure and infrastructure of global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticles Research, 8, 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L., & Welbers, K. (2011). The semantic mapping of words and co-words in contexts. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Dynamic scientific co-authorship networks. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. Van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics—Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences (pp. 195–232). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Martin, T., Ball, B., Karrer, B., & Newman M. E. J. (2013). Coauthorship and citation in scientific publishing. Retrieved December 27, 2014, from
  26. Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 1(1), 61–67.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Milojević, S. (2009). Big science, nano science? Mapping the evolution and socio-cognitive structure of nanoscience/nanotechnology using mixed methods. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  28. Milojević, S. (2012). Multidisciplinary cognitive content of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  29. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nanobilim. (2004). Nanobilim ve Nanoteknoloji Stratejileri (Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Strategies). Ankara: TÜBİTAK. Retrieved, December 2, 2015, from
  31. Nanotechnology. (2015). Retrieved, January 20, 2015, from
  32. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 98(2), 404–409.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ovalle-Perandones, M.-A., Gorraiz, J., Wieland, M., Gumpenberger, C., & Olmeda-Gomez, G. (2013). The influence of European framework programmes on scientific collaboration in nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 97(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Özel, B. (2010). Scientific collaboration networks: Knowledge diffusion and fragmentation in Turkish management academia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bilgi University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  36. Özgüz, V. (2013). Nanotechnology research and education in Turkey (presentation slides). Retrieved, December 27, 2014, from ttp:// Scholar
  37. Page, L., & Brin, S. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Wiborg Schneider, J. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday (pp. 9–24). Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.Google Scholar
  39. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rousseau, R. (1997). Sitations: An exploratory study. Cybermetrics. Retrieved, February 14 2014, from
  42. Scharnhorst, A., & Garfield, E. (2010). Tracing scientific influence. Dynamics of Socio-Economic Systems, 2(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  43. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59, 425–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Testa, J. (2004). The Thomson Scientific journal selection process. Retrieved, November 25 2015 from
  47. Ulusal. (2004). Ulusal Bilim ve Teknoloji Politikaları 20032023 Strateji Belgesi (National Science and Technology Policies The Strategi Document of 2003–2023. Ankara: TÜBİTAK. Retrieved, December 2, 2015, from
  48. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vitanov, N. K., & Ausloos, M. R. (2012). Knowledge epidemics and population dynamics models for describing idea diffusion. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. Van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics—Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences (pp. 69–125). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Watts, D. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  51. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 327–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Management & RecordsKastamonu UniversityKastamonuTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Information Management, Faculty of LettersHacettepe UniversityBeytepe, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations