Blog ve Vikipedi’nin Akademik Yayınlarda Kullanılması

Abstract

Akademik çalışmaların hakemlik sürecinde, kaynakçanın değerlendirilmesi ortak bir gerekliliktir. Çalışmaların inandırıcılığındaki kriterlerden birisi de öne sürülenlerin, sağlam ve hakem sürecinden geçmiş yazın kaynaklarıyla desteklenmesidir. Hakem denetiminden geçmemiş kaynakların kullanılması, çalışmanın değerini düşürebilir hatta reddedilmesine veya daha sonradan geri çekilmesine neden olabilir. Son zamanlarda, kaynakçasında, Vikipedi ve blog kullanan çalışmalar görülmeye başlanmıştır; bunlara verilen itibarın araştırılması, araştırmamızın motivasyonu olmuştur. Çalışma, geniş veritabanına sahip ScienceDirect bünyesinde çerçevelenmiştir ve kaynakçasında blog ve Vikipedi gösteren çalışmalar sorgulanmıştır.Sonuçların gösterdiğine göre, blogları ve Vikipedi’yi, akademik yayınlarda kullanan birçok akademik yayın örneği vardır. Bu bulgu çalışma çerçevesiyle kısıtlı olduğundan, blogların ve Vikipedi’nin kaynakçada gösterilebilmesinin kabullenildiği şeklinde beyan edillebilmesinin çok erken olduğu belirtilmiştir; ancak, bazı araştırma alanlarında, bunun pratikte kullanılmaya başladığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Blog
• Vikipedi
• hakem sürecinden geçmemiş kaynak
• ScienceDirect

De Facto Adoption of Blog and Wikipedia in Research Reporting

Abstract

Assessing references in the review process of academic research is a common requirement. One of the criteria in the credibility of the works is to support arguments with solid and peer-reviewed resources from the literature. Having non peer-reviewed resources in the references can degrade the work and this may be a reason for rejection or retraction, later. Recently, works taking such resources as reference appear more often with increasing number of blogs and Wikipedia usage; hence, the motivation of this study is to investigate given credit to such works. As the case study, investigation is done in the huge online database of ScienceDirect. Queries to extract number of works housing such references are run per research fields classified in the database. The results show there are considerable number of examples where blogs and Wikipedia are seen as resources to be used in academic papers. This finding is limited to the case study and it is too early to declare that blogs and Wikipedia can be used as references; however, a de facto adoption exits in some research fields.

Keywords

• Blog
• Wikipedia
• non peer-reviewed resource
• ScienceDirect

References

1. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2009). In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components of the internet among politically interested internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 175– 182. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.004
2. Yang, K. C. C. (2007). Factors influencing Internet users’ perceived credibility of news-related blogs in Taiwan. Telematics and Informatics, 24, 69-85. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2006.04.001
3. Chip. (2009, 12.Jan.2009). Wikipedia aslında ne kadar güvenilir? Chip Online.
4. Rector, L. H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 3(1), 7-22.
5. Black, E. W. (2008). Wikipedia and academic peer review: Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication? Online Information Review, 32(1), 73-88.
6. Xiao, L., & Askin, N. (2012). Wikipedia for academic publishing: advantages and challenges. Online Information Review, 36(3), 359-373.
7. Eijkman, H. (2010). Academics and Wikipedia: Reframing Web 2.0+as a disruptor of traditional academic power-knowledge arrangements. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(3), 173- 185.
8. Volentine, R., & Tenopir, C. (2013). Value of academic reading and value of the library in academics’ own words. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 65(4), 425-440.

9. Ertl, P., Patiny, L., Sander, T., Rufener, C., & Zasso, M. (2015). Wikipedia Chemical Structure Explorer: substructure and similarity searching of molecules from Wikipedia. Journal of Cheminformatics, 7(10).
10. Serrano-López, A. E., Ingwersen, P., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2017). Wind power research in Wikipedia: Does Wikipedia demonstrate direct influence of research publications and can it be used as adequate source in research evaluation? Scientometrics, in press.
11. Doyle, J. D., Heslop, L. A., Ramirez, A., & Cray, D. (2012). Trust intentions in readers of blogs. Management Research Review, 35(9), 837-856.
12. Hendricks, A. (2010). Bloggership, or is publishing a blog scholarship? A survey of academic librarians. Library Hi Tech, 28(3), 470-477.
13. Schwartz, B., Ranlett, M., & Draper, S. (2009). Social Computing with Microsoft SharePoint 2007: Implementing Applications for SharePoint to Enable Collaboration and Interaction in the Enterprise: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Overblog. (2017). Earn money. Retrieved 12.May.2017, 2017, from https://en.over- blog.com/features/earn-money
15. Hsu, C.-L., & Lin, J. C.-C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45, 65-74. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2007.11.001
16. Kazama, K., Imada, M., & Kashiwagi, K. (2012). Characteristics of information diffusion in blogs, in relation to information source type. Neurocomputing, 76, 84-92. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2011.04.036
17. Noh, T.-G., Park, S.-B., Park, S.-Y., & Lee, S.-J. (2010). Learning the emergent knowledge from annotated blog postings. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 8, 329–339.
18. Bonetta, L. (2007). Scientists Enter the Blogosphere. Cell, 129, 443-445. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.04.032
19. Kim, H. N. (2008). The phenomenon of blogs and theoretical model of blog use in educational contexts. Computers & Education, 51, 1342–1352.
20. Wilkins, J. S. (2008). The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs. Cell, 23(8), 411-413. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.05.004 A
21. Anderson, J. J. (2011). Wikipedia: The Company and Its Founders: ABDO Publishing Company.
22. Sidener, J. (2006, 6.Dec.2006). Everyone's Encyclopedia. San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20160114101809/http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/uni ontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html
23. Harvard College Writing Program. (2017). What's Wrong with Wikipedia? Retrieved 12.May.2017, 2017, from http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376
24. Budge, K., Lemon, N., & McPherson, M. (2016). Academics who tweet: “messy” identities in academia. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(2), 210-221.