“Corylus avellana” Anahtar Kelimesinin Bibliyometrik ve Betimleyici İçerik Analizi

Abstract

Fındık, Türkiye’nin temel tarımsal ve ihracat ürünlerinden biridir ve küresel pazarda önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu nedenle, fındık araştırmalarının bibliyometrik analizi, bilimsel görünürlüğü artırmak ve gelecekteki sektörel ve politika kararlarına rehberlik etmek için gereklidir. Bu çalışmada, 15 Ekim 2025’te Web of Science’dan “Corylus avellana” anahtar kelimesi kullanılarak elde edilen 2,275 yayın (1980–2025) bibliyometrik yöntemlerle analiz edilmiştir. Görselleştirme, veri seti oluşturma ve ağ haritalama için VOSviewer 1.6.20 kullanılırken, tanımlayıcı analiz Web of Science araçları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ortak yazarlık kalıpları, anahtar kelime birlikteliği ve atıf eğilimleri bütünleşik bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Türkiye’deki kurumlar arasında Ordu Üniversitesi, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi ve Giresun Üniversitesi en üretken olanlardır. İtalya, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, İspanya, Almanya ve Birleşik Krallık’ta da yüksek kaliteli araştırma çıktısı gözlemlenmiştir. Özellikle Türkiye’den sonra dünyanın en büyük ikinci üreticisi olan İtalya, sektörel gelişimiyle desteklenen güçlü bir bilimsel olgunluk sergilemektedir. Genel olarak, Türkiye’nin fındık üretimindeki liderliği, sürdürülebilir bilimsel kapasite ile güçlendirilmelidir. Üniversiteler, araştırma merkezleri, kamu kurumları ve özel sektör arasındaki iş birliğinin güçlendirilmesi, iyi finanse edilmiş ve hedef odaklı Ar-Ge girişimleriyle birlikte daha entegre bir araştırma ekosistemi oluşturacaktır. Bu yaklaşım, Türkiye’nin küresel rekabet gücünü ve akademik görünürlüğünü artırırken, küresel fındık araştırma dinamiklerinin daha derinlemesine anlaşılmasına da katkıda bulunacaktır.

Keywords

• Fındık
• bibliyometrik analiz
• betimleyici içerik analizi
• yayın trendleri
• tarımsal araştırmalar

Bibliometric and Descriptive Content Analysis of the Keyword “Corylus avellana”

Abstract

Hazelnuts are a key agricultural and export product for Türkiye and play an important role in the global market. Therefore, bibliometric analysis of hazelnut research is essential to enhance scientific visibility and guide future sectoral and policy decisions. In this study, 2,275 publications (1980–2025) retrieved from the Web of Science on 15 October 2025 using the keyword “Corylus avellana” were analyzed using bibliometric methods. VOSviewer 1.6.20 was used for visualization, dataset construction, and network mapping, while descriptive analysis was conducted using Web of Science tools. Co-authorship patterns, keyword co-occurrence, and citation trends were evaluated in an integrated manner. Among institutions in Türkiye, Ordu University, Ondokuz Mayıs University, and Giresun University were the most productive. High-quality research output was also observed in Italy, the United States, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Notably, Italy, the second-largest global producer after Türkiye, demonstrates strong scientific maturity supported by its sectoral development. Overall, Türkiye’s leadership in hazelnut production should be reinforced through sustainable scientific capacity. Strengthening collaboration among universities, research centers, public institutions, and the private sector, together with well-funded and targeted R&D initiatives, will build a more integrated research ecosystem. This approach will improve Türkiye’s global competitiveness and academic visibility while contributing to a deeper understanding of global hazelnut research dynamics.

Keywords

• Hazelnut
• Bibliometric analysis
• Descriptive content analysis
• Publication trends
• Agricultural research

References

1. Balık, H.İ. (2018). Studies on xenia and metaxenia in hazelnut (Doctoral dissertation). Ondokuz Mayıs University, Institute of Science, Department of Horticulture, Samsun, Türkiye.
2. Boyack, K.W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Creation of a highly detailed, dynamic, global model and map of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 670–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22990
3. Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
4. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W.M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2021.04.070
5. Dwivedi, R., Nerur, S., & Balijepally, V. (2023). Exploring artificial intelligence and big data scholarship in information systems: A citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-word analysis. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 3(2), 100185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jjimei.2023.100185
6. Erat, K. (2024). Determination of the effects of supplementary pollination on yield and fruit quality in hazelnut (Master’s thesis). Sakarya University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Graduate Education, Department of Horticulture, Sakarya, Türkiye.
7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2024). Crops and livestock products. FAOSTAT database.
8. Faraji, O., Asiaei, K., Rezaee, Z., Bontis, N., & Dolatzarei, E. (2022). Mapping the conceptual structure of intellectual capital research: A co-word analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(3), 100202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100202

9. Fonseca, B.D.P.F.E., Sampaio, R.B., Fonseca, M.V.D.A., & Zicker, F. (2016). Co-authorship network analysis in health research: Method and potential use. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14, 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0104-5
10. Hu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Research patterns and trends of recommendation systems in China using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 51(4), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.02.002
11. Loeb, S., Dynarski, S., McFarland, D., Morris, P., Reardon, S., & Reber, S. (2017). Descriptive analysis in education: A guide for researchers (NCEE 2017-4023). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
12. Molnar, T.J. (2011). Corylus. In C. Kole (Ed.), Wild crop relatives: Genomic and breeding resources: Forest trees (pp. 15–48). Springer.
13. Šubelj, L., Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2016). Clustering scientific publications based on citation relations: A systematic comparison of different methods. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0154404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0154404
14. Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326349
15. TEPGE (2023). Agricultural products markets report: Hazelnut. Agricultural Economics and Policy Development Institute.
16. Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
17. Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp. 285–320). Springer.
18. Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2020). VOSviewer manual (Version 1.6.16). Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University.
19. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629