DİJİTAL DÖNÜŞÜMÜN EKSENİNDE: YAPAY ZEKÂ VE SOSYAL MEDYA KONULU ÇALIŞMALARIN BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZİ

Abstract

Dijitalleşmenin ivme kazandığı günümüz bilgi toplumunda, yapay zekâ teknolojileri yaşamın çeşitli alanlarına entegre olurken, sosyal medya platformları da bireylerin gündelik pratiklerinin ayrılmaz bir parçası haline gelmiştir. Yapay zekâ ile sosyal medya teknolojilerinin giderek daha fazla etkileşim içine girmesi, bu iki alanın kesişim noktasında yürütülen akademik çalışmaların da artmasına neden olmuştur. Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ ve sosyal medya temalı bilimsel yayınların genel eğilimlerini, yapısal ilişkilerini ve odaklandıkları konuları ortaya koymak amacıyla bibliyometrik bir analiz olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada, Web of Science veri tabanında yer alan ve 2376 araştırma makalesinden oluşan veri seti bibliyometrik yöntemle incelenmiş; VOSviewer yazılımı aracılığıyla sözcük ağları ve işbirliği haritaları oluşturulmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, özellikle Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Birleşik Krallık gibi ülkelerdeki araştırmacıların bu alana yoğun ilgi gösterdiğini ve bu ülkelerin literatürde belirleyici aktörler olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Alan dağılımı açısından bakıldığında, çalışmaların büyük ölçüde bilgisayar bilimleri ve mühendislik disiplinlerinde yoğunlaştığı, yayımlanan makalelerin ve bunlara yapılan atıfların son yıllarda belirgin biçimde artış gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Ortak anahtar kelime analizleri sonucunda, çalışmaların genel olarak teknik ve uygulamalı konulara odaklandığı, ancak “sahte haber”, “deepfake” ve “nefret söylemi” gibi yapay zekâ ve sosyal medya kesişiminde yer alan önemli toplumsal meselelerin araştırmalarda yeterince temsil edilmediği gözlemlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Yapay Zeka
• Sosyal Medya
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Deepfake
• Nefret Söylemi.

AT THE AXIS OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND SOCIAL MEDIA

Abstract

In today's rapidly digitalizing world, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are being increasingly integrated into various aspects of daily life, while social media platforms have become indispensable components of everyday practices. As AI and social media technologies converge, academic interest in the intersection of these two domains has significantly intensified. This study was conducted as a bibliometric analysis to reveal the general trends, structural relationships, and thematic focuses of scientific publications addressing artificial intelligence and social media. This study conducts a bibliometric analysis of 2,376 research articles indexed in the Web of Science database, employing VOSviewer software to generate co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence network maps. The findings reveal that researchers from countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom are leading contributors to this field, reflecting their prominent position in shaping the global literature. In terms of disciplinary focus, the studies are predominantly situated within the domains of computer science and engineering, and a noticeable increase in both publication and citation numbers has been observed in recent years. Keyword co-occurrence analysis indicates a prevailing focus on technical and applied research areas. However, critical societal issues at the intersection of AI and social media -such as fake news, deepfakes, and hate speech - remain underrepresented in the existing body of literature.

Keywords

• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media
• Bibliometric Analysis
• Deepfake
• Hate Speech.

References

1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research. Scientometrics, 86(3), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0284-7
2. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
3. Anjila, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence and its applications. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 5(2), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.31142/ijtsrd38640
4. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
5. Ayers, J. W., Poliak, A., Dredze, M., Leas, E. C., Zhu, Z., Kelley, J. B., ... Smith, D. M. (2023). Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum. JAMA Internal Medicine, 183(6), 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1837
6. Baly, R., Karadzhov, G., Alexandrov, D., Glass, J., & Nakov, P. (2018). Predicting factuality of reporting and bias of news media sources. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 3528–3539).
7. Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22803
8. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.

9. 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(3), 359–377.
10. 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.
11. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to algorithms (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
12. Demir, Y., & Öztürk, M. (2023). Tarihsel süreçte “çevrimiçi taciz”: Bibliyometrik bir analiz. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(2), 939–953.
13. 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
14. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., ... Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002
15. Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., ... Wang, Y. (2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management, 59, 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168
16. Fetzer, J. H. (1990). Artificial intelligence and theoretical issues in cognitive science. In J. H. Fetzer (Ed.), Aspects of artificial intelligence (pp. 1–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0621-0_1
17. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., ... Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
18. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, & K. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.
19. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet. Yale University Press.
20. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.
21. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2020). Speech and language processing (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
22. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25.
23. Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Business Horizons, 54(3), 241–251.
24. Kietzmann, J., Paschen, J., & Treen, E. (2018). Artificial intelligence in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 58(3), 263–267.
25. López, G. (2020). Chatbots in customer service. Journal of Service Research, 23(1), 3–7.
26. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.
27. McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (2006). A proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. AI Magazine, 27(4), 12.
28. Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine learning. McGraw-Hill.
29. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. NYU Press.
30. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction. Crown.
31. Öztürk, M. (2024). Yenilikten tartışmaya: Yapay zekâ ve deepfake çalışmaları. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 73–93.
32. Öztürk, M., & Demir, Y. (2023). Bilgilendirme ve kaos arasında. TRT Akademi, 8(18), 506–527.
33. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. Penguin.
34. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2018). The implied truth effect. Management Science, 66(11), 4944–4957.
35. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
36. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457.
37. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic. Princeton University Press.
38. Tufekci, Z. (2018). Twitter and tear gas. Yale University Press.
39. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
40. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053–1070.
41. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.
42. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder. Council of Europe.
43. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
44. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.