Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 115, Issue 3, pp 1199–1229 | Cite as

Scientific productivity and cooperation in Turkic world: a bibliometric analysis

  • Köksal Şahin
  • Gökçe Candan
Article
  • 226 Downloads

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to gain insight about scientific productivity and cooperation among Turkish language speaking countries in today’s conditions in which scientific cooperation has gained ever-increasing significance. The basic problematic of the current research is as follows: although scientific production and cooperation has gained a strategic importance and bibliometric studies have become popular on scientific production processes with reference to the number of academic publications and citations, academic studies on this field have not been carried out yet in Turkish language speaking countries. In the current study, a bibliometric analysis was done with reference to co-authored scientific documents and citations between 2000 and 2016 years in the countries being a member of “Turkic Council” which is one of the main international organizations aiming to institutionalize scientific cooperation in Turkic world. In the analyses obtained from Web of Science, the following phenomena were highlighted the number of academic documents, the number of citations, the number of academic documents per academic staff, the number of academic documents per institutions, the impact factors of the studies, the main research fields, the number of co-authored academic studies which the member countries carried out together and with the other countries and finally the languages used in these academic studies. The basic research question in the present research focuses on what kind of evolution appeared in the number of academic documents, their impact factors, co-authoring matter and their main research fields in Turkic Council member countries. The essential findings of this interdisciplinary study in which scientific research statistics of the member countries are presented in analyses along with geopolitical descriptions can be listed as follows; Turkey is the main research partner of Turkic Council member countries, Turkey has still kept its preliminary role in the process of scientific cooperation in Turkic world together with the end of the cold war, the other member countries except for Turkey have fallen behind considerably in the rank of publication and citation performance, the scientific cooperation among other member countries has not been activated yet despite the institutional moves of the Council, the use of Turkish language in the examined documents is rather scarce although Turkey occupies the scientific preliminary position and the Council is an international organization which is shaped under the framework of common language axis.

Keywords

Turkic world Bibliometrics Scientific productivity Cooperation 

References

  1. Abdiraiymova, G., Duisenova, S., & Shayakhmetov, S. (2013). Reforming of system of the higher education in Kazakhstan (based on results of sociological research). Procedia, 82, 397–403.Google Scholar
  2. Agion, P., & Akçiğit, U. (2014). What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory. Handbook of Economic Growth, 2, 515–563.Google Scholar
  3. Al, U. (2012). Publication and citation performances of European Union countries and Turkey. Bilig, 62, 1.Google Scholar
  4. Alasehir, O., Cakir, M. P., Acarturk, C., Baykal, N., & Akbulut, U. (2014). URAP-TR: A national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance. Scientometrics, 101, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aman, V. (2016). How collaboration impacts citation flows within the German science system. Scientometrics, 109, 2195–2216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anwar, M. A., & Abu Bakar, A. B. (1997). Current state of science and technology in the Muslim world. Scientometrics, 40(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aytac, S. (2011). Scientific International Collaboration of Turkey, Greece, Poland, and Portugal: A bibliometric analysis. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bagcı, H., & Doganlar, A. A. (2009). Changing geopolitics and Turkish foreign policy. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie—Sklodowska Lublin-Polonia, XVI(2), 97–115.Google Scholar
  9. Bar-İlan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS Scopus and Google Scholar. Sciontometrics, 74(2), 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biyikli, M. (2016).The roles and collaborations of international Turkic Academy (TWESCO). Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, Special Number of Afro-Eurasia, 404–418.Google Scholar
  11. Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8), 716–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavacini, A. (2016). Recent trends in Middle Eastern scientific production. Scientometrics, 109, 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., et al. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choi, S. (2012). Core-periphery, new clusters, or rising stars? International scientific collaboration among advanced countries in the era of globalization. Scientometrics, 90, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarivate Analytics, Web of Science. (2017b). Accessed November 23, 2017, from http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS59B4/help/WOS/hs_document_type.html.
  16. Drucker, P. F. (2002). Managing in the next society. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  17. Dugin, A. (1997). The foundations of geopolitics: The geopolitical future of Russia. Moscow: Arktogeya.Google Scholar
  18. Economic Development Foundation (IKV). (2016). Accessed February 22, 2016, from http://ikv.org.tr/images/upload/data/files/8-avrupa_arastirma_alani.pdf.
  19. Elsevier Scopus. Accessed November 23, 2017, https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.
  20. Eom, S. (2009). Author cocitation analysis: Quantitative methods for mapping the intellectual structure of an academic discipline. New York: Information Science Reference, Hershey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ERA (European Research Area). (2017).Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge. Accessed July 2, 2017, http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/optimal-circulation_en.htm.
  22. Featherstone, K., & Kazamias, G. (2014). Europeanization and the southern periphery. Newyork: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Fuller, G. E., & Lesser, I. (1993). Turkey’s new geopolitics: From the Balkans to Western China (RAND studies). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  24. Georghiou, L. (1998). Global cooperation in research. Research Policy, 27, 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. NewYork: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Gonzales, L. R., Gonzales, C. N., & Veleso, F. (2016). Using co-authorship and citation analysis to identify research groups: A new way to assess performance. Scientometrics, 108, 1171–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gossart, C., & Ozman, M. (2009). Co-authorship networks in social sciences: The case of Turkey. Scientometrics, 78(2), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gul, S., Nisa, N. T., Shah, T. A., Gupta, S., Jan, A., & Ahmad, S. (2015). Middle East: Research productivity and performance across nations. Scientometrics, 105, 1157–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gzoyan, E. G., Hovhannisyan, L. A., Aleksanyan, S. A., Ghazaryan, N. A., Hunanyan, S. R., Bourghida, A., et al. (2015). Comparative analysis of the scientific output of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Scientometrics, 102, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hagel, J., & Brown, J. S. (2005). Innovation Blowback: Disruptive management practices from Asia. McKinsey Quarterly. Accessed July 10, 2017, from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/innovation-blowback-disruptive-management-practices-from-asia.
  31. Hess, C., Ostrom, E. (Ed.). (2007). A framework for analyzing the knowledge commons. In Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Incites-Essential Science Indicators. Accessed November 23, 2017, from https://esi.incites.thomsonreuters.comAccessed.
  33. Kato, M., & Ando, A. (2017). Nationalities of international scientific collaboration and researcher mobility found in Nature and Science. Scientometrics, 110, 673–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kotsemir, M., & Shashnov, S. (2017). Measuring, analysis and visualization of research capacity of university at the level of departments and staff members. Scientometrics, 112, 1659–1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kumar, S., & Jan, J. M. (2014). Research collaboration networks of two OIC nations: Comparative study between Turkey and Malaysia in the field of Energy Fuels, 2009–2011. Scientometrics, 98, 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mei, X., Zhu, X., Zhang, T., Jia, Z., & Wan, C. (2016). Worldwide productivity in the hand and wrist literature: A bibliometric analysis of four highly cited subspecialty journals. International Journal of Surgery, 28, 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mert, O. (2015). The first general committee of the Turkish Council Union of the Turkish Universities and the Union of Turkish Universities. Journal of Turkish Research Institute, 53, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miotke, J. (2008). International science and technology cooperation. Accessed July 10, 2017, from https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/102995.htm.
  40. Onder, C., Sevkli, M., Altinok, T., & Tavukcuoglu, C. (2008). Institutional change and scientific research: A preliminary bibliometric analysis of institutional influences on Turkey’s recent social science publications. Scientometrics, 76(3), 543–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinto, M. J., & Fernandez, S. (2015). New questions arise: Are bibliometric indicators adequate for evaluating the scientific production of the social sciences and humanities? Qualitative and Quantitive Methods in Libraries (QQML) Special Issue Bibliometrics and Scientometrics, 161–169.Google Scholar
  42. Russell, J. M. (1995). The increasing role of international cooperation in science and technology research in Mexico. Scientometrics, 34(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rymer, B. C., & Choa, R. M. (2015). A worldwide bibliometric analysis of published literature in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 68, 1304–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sahin, K. (2009). The nation state under the light of globalization discussions. In Turkish: KüreselleşmeTartışmalarıIşığındaUlusDevlet, 2nd edn. İstanbul:Yeniyüzyıl Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sahin, K. (2016). Science, geopolitics and the Turkish world. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, CIEP Special Edition, 1091–1100.Google Scholar
  46. Sarwar, R., & Hassan, S. U. (2015). A bibliometric assessment of scientific productivity and international collaboration of the Islamic World in science and technology (S&T) areas. Scientometrics, 105, 1059–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. SCImago. (2007). SJR—SCImago Journal&Country Rank. Accessed November 23, 2017, http://www.scimagojr.com.
  48. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2017). Do types of collaboration change citation? A scientometric analysis of social science publications in South Africa. Scientometrics, 111, 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sweileh, W. M., Shraim, N. Y., Zyoud, S. H., & Al-Jabi, S. H. (2016). Worldwide research productivity on tramadol: A bibliometric analysis. SpringerPlus, 5, 1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. TDIK (Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States). (2017). Accessed July 28, 2017, http://www.turkkon.org/tr-TR/genel_bilgi/1/10.
  51. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow & Company.Google Scholar
  52. Turkic Universities Union. (2017a). Directive. Accessed June 8, 2017, from http://www.turkunib.org/static/images/directive.pdf.
  53. Turkic Universities Union. (2017b). Orhun process. Accessed June 8, 2017, from http://www.turkunib.org/orhun/.
  54. TWESCO (International Turkic Akademy). (2017). Accessed June 5, 2017, from http://twesco.org/tr/about/.
  55. ULAKBIM. (2017). Turkey’s scientific publication map. Accessed June 24, 2017, from http://cabim.ulakbim.gov.tr/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/03/T%C3%BCrkiye_Bilim_Haritas%C4%B1-1981-2006.pdf.
  56. Uzun, A. (2006). Science and technology policy in Turkey. National strategies for innovation and change during the 1983–2003 period and beyond. Scientometrics, 66(3), 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. YOK (Council of Higher Education). (2017a). Accessed June 5, 2017, from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/.
  58. YOK (Council of Higher Education). (2017b). Mevlana exchange programme. Accessed June 5, 2017, from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/757816/1380059/Mevlana-Kitapcik-Yeni_08.06.2015_%C4%B0statistiksiz.pdf/13a2eeb0-efbd-4815-b755-56f3f8990d9e.
  59. Zavareh, M. S. R., & Alavian, S. M. (2017). Ten-year analysis of hepatitis-related papers in the Middle East: A web of science-based scientometric study. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, 28, 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhou, P., & Glanzel, W. (2010). In-depth analysis on China’s international cooperation in science. Scientometrics, 82, 597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Faculty of Political ScienceSakarya UniversitySakaryaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Econometrics, Faculty of Political ScienceSakarya UniversitySakaryaTurkey

Personalised recommendations